Kanu Seeks A'Court to Halt Nov. 20 Terrorism Ruling

The arrested head of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a request with the Court of Appeal in Abuja, asking for ...

The arrested head of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a request with the Court of Appeal in Abuja, asking for an injunction to prevent the Federal High Court from ruling on his current terrorism case.

Judge James Omotosho of the Federal High Court has set November 20 as the date for delivering the verdict in the case, which has been proceeding since 2015.

The court set the date for the verdict on November 7 following multiple chances given to Kanu to present his argument.

Kanu had previously dismissed his legal team and decided to represent himself. However, he later changed his stance, stating there were no legitimate charges against him that required him to present a defense.

In his no-case argument, he claimed that the anti-terrorism legislation used by the federal authorities to charge him had been abolished. Consequently, he submitted a request to the court for his release.

Nevertheless, Judge Omotosho rejected his motion for a directed verdict and provided him with multiple chances to present his defense, ultimately setting November 20 for the ruling.

In a final attempt, Kanu met with the judge on Tuesday, requesting an indefinite postponement of the verdict, which was denied.

Unhappy, Kanu, on Wednesday, went to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, asking it to direct the lower court to stop the planned ruling.

Kanu mentioned that he has submitted an appeal notice regarding the September 26 decision by Judge Omotosho, which rejected his motion to dismiss the case and required him to face the terrorism charges.

In the appeal, where the Federal Government was the only respondent and Kanu was the appellant, he claimed that the lower court made a mistake by rejecting his no-case submission without examining the jurisdictional and legal validity of the charges.

Among his arguments, Kanu stated that the Federal High Court was incorrect in supporting the charges since the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been abolished, rendering the charges unlawful.

He further claimed that the judge did not consider the constitutional question of jurisdiction in his decision regarding the no-case submission.

Kanu also claimed that Justice Omotosho failed to adequately assess the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses or their responses during cross-examination to establish if the evidence had been undermined.

He said, "I intended to summon 23 witnesses only after the matter of jurisdiction was settled, but the court did not permit this, indicating that it would be handled in the final ruling. The judge prevented me from defending myself while declining to address my concerns regarding the legitimacy of certain charges."

He cautioned that if the Court of Appeal does not stop the ruling, he faces the possibility of an unlawful conviction and sentencing, with his appeal turning into "just a theoretical discussion," effectively making the appellate process a done deal.

In a 13-paragraph sworn statement, Kanu also highlighted concerns regarding non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directive concerning the validity of count seven in the charges, as well as the omission to conduct the required test under Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

He stated that the Supreme Court had made clear that count seven was no longer a crime in Nigeria, as it had been abolished.

Kanu highlighted that his ongoing appeal involves significant constitutional matters, specifically pointing out that charges one through six are founded on a repealed law, indicating there are no legitimate charges against him.

He said, "If this request is approved, the respondent will not face any harm, and on the other hand, denying this request would lead to unfairness because it would prevent me from exercising my constitutional right to appeal."

The Court of Appeal has not yet set a date for the hearing of the motion.

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).