Detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, seeking to stop the Federal High Court from delivering judgment in his ongoing terrorism trial.
The appeal comes barely days before Justice James Omotosho is scheduled to deliver judgment on November 20, marking another dramatic turn in a case that has dragged on since 2015.
Justice Omotosho had fixed the date after repeatedly giving Kanu the opportunity to present his defence, following the dismissal of his no-case submission.
Although the IPOB leader initially dismissed his legal team to conduct his own defence, he later argued that the terrorism law under which he was charged had been repealed — rendering the case invalid. He consequently urged the court to terminate the proceedings.
However, the trial judge disagreed, ruling that the charges remained valid and directing Kanu to open his defence. Dissatisfied, Kanu returned to court on Tuesday, requesting an indefinite adjournment of the judgment — a plea that Justice Omotosho declined.
In a fresh motion filed on Wednesday, Kanu asked the Court of Appeal to halt the scheduled judgment, pending the determination of his appeal against the lower court’s ruling.
According to his notice of appeal, Kanu contends that Justice Omotosho erred in law by dismissing his no-case submission without first resolving critical issues of jurisdiction and the legality of the charges against him.
He further argued that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, which formed the basis of his prosecution, had already been repealed, making the case null and void.
Kanu also faulted the trial judge for allegedly failing to properly assess the testimony of prosecution witnesses and their cross-examinations before reaching a conclusion that he had a case to answer.
“I sought to call 23 witnesses only after the issue of jurisdiction had been determined,” Kanu said, “but the court refused, insisting it would be addressed in the final judgment. The judge foreclosed my right to defend myself while declining to rule on my objections to the validity of several counts.”
The IPOB leader warned that unless the appellate court intervenes, he faces the risk of an unlawful conviction, which would render his appeal meaningless and “reduce the judicial process to a mere formality.”
In a 13-paragraph affidavit supporting the motion, Kanu cited alleged disobedience to a Supreme Court ruling that nullified one of the charges (count seven), and accused the trial court of ignoring mandatory provisions of Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
He maintained that most of the remaining counts are anchored on a repealed statute, insisting there are no valid charges against him before the Federal High Court.
“The respondent will suffer no prejudice if this application is granted,” Kanu stated, “but refusing it would result in grave injustice and deprive me of my constitutional right to appeal.”
As of the time of filing this report, the Court of Appeal had yet to fix a date for hearing the motion.
