Nnamdi Kanu Files Brief Of Appeal Against Federal High Court Ruling

The detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a brief of argument against the decision of Abuja Federal High Court which dismissed the objection to his trial continuation.

Kanu, in the brief of argument, dated May 28 but filed on Wednesday, May 29 by his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, prayed the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to set aside the trial court’s decision.

New Telegraph reports that in the appellant brief of argument, the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the sole respondent.

Recall that the IPOB leader had filed a preliminary objection seeking an order for some conditions to be met by the Federal Government before his trial at the FHC could proceed.
READ ALSO:

He had alleged that the Department of State Services (DSS) personnel often seized documents of his lawyers during visitation, stopped his lawyers from taking notes, eavesdropped on his consultation with his lawyers on matters pertaining to his defence, among others.

Kanu also alleged that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to defend himself, in accordance with Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

But Justice Binta Nyako of a FHC had, in a ruling on March 19, declined to grant the objection of the detained IPOB leader.

The judge, who ordered accelerated hearing of the trial, also dismissed his application for bail.

The judge, also on May 20, dismissed Kanu’s plea for an order to either set aside the 2017 revocation of his bail, transfer him to Kuje Correctional Centre or to be placed under house arrest.

Also, in his brief of argument made available on Thursday, Kanu sought four reliefs.

The IPOB leader prayed the appellate court to allow the appeal, vacate the ruling of the lower court and for the trial court to decline jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the case unless and until he is granted his right to fair hearing under Section 36(6)(6)(b) and (c) of the constitution.

Alternatively, he prayed the Appeal Court for the trial court to order an alternative custodial or non-custodial arrangement free of interference with his said constitutional right to fair hearing.

He also sought an order setting aside the order for accelerated hearing of the case in the circumstances of the case where he is not allowed facilities to prepare for the defence of the charges against him and denied his right to counsel.

Kanu sought a stay of proceedings pending when the respondent affords him the constitutional safeguards of being afforded adequate facilities to prepare for his defence and his unfettered right to counsel.