Nnamdi Kanu Appeals Court Judgement Retaining Seven Of 15 Charges Against Him, Alleges Miscarriage Of Justice

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has appealed a recent ruling of the Federal High Court which struck out eight out of the 15-count charge filed against him.

Kanu had been standing trial on an amended 15-count charge bordering on treasonable felony.

On April 8, Binta Nyako, the judge, ruling on Kanu’s application on Friday, struck out counts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

This means the IPOB leader is to stand trial on counts 1,2,3,4,5,8 and 15.

But in the appeal issued on Friday and signed by his lead counsel, Mike Ozekhome, as obtained by SaharaReporters, Kanu prayed the court of appeal in Abuja to dismiss the remaining charges against him and discharge him.

The separatist leader faulted Nyako's ruling on the case, arguing that the judge erred in several areas which amount to a "miscarriage of justice".

It reads, “Ground one: error in law. The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to consider, make a finding of facts and accordingly pronounce on issue one raised for the trial Court’s determination, relating to the extraordinary rendition of the Appellant, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“Ground two: error in law. The learned trial Judge erred in Law, when he held that “the defendant is being charged under Section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act, which has been reproduced above, any offence alleged to have been committed “within” or “outside” Nigeria can be brought under the Act”, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”

“Ground three: error in law. The learned trial Judge erred in law, when he held that although the status of the Indigenous People of Biafra as a proscribed organization is a subject matter before the Court of Appeal, but as long as the appeal has not been determined, the order of Court proscribing is still in force until set aside, and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

“Ground four: error in law. The learned trial Judge erred in law when in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 216(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, suo motu amended count 15 of the charge, which is founded on an allegation of importation of a radio transmitter in Ubuluisiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, and proceeded to assume jurisdiction over offences allegedly committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“Ground five: error in law. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that trials before the Federal High Court are summary, and consequently ruled that counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 show some semblance of allegation of an offence on which the Court can proceed to trial, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”