BREAKING: Court To Rule On Nnamdi Kanu April 8

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed April 8 to decide whether the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, will be discharged from the 15- count terrorism charges instituted against him or not.

Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, had urged Justice Binta Nyako to quash and dismiss the amended 15- count charges for being incompetent.

“An order discharging and acquitting the defendant of the charges where same has been dismissed by the court,” Ozekhome’s application read.

The defendant’s lawyer argued that the entire charge by the federal government did not disclose any prima facie (proven) evidence.

He also urged the court to be mindful of its jurisdiction saying that Kanu’s case had an international connotation because he was “unlawfully and brutally renditioned from Kenya.”

Furthermore, Ozekhome contended that it was inaccurate for the prosecution to claim that IPOB is a proscribed organization, since the matter is subject of an appeal.

Ozekhome further explained that the evidence FG is bringing are the same they brought earlier which was struck out by the court.

He also argued that the prosecution did not show in the charges, how Kanu’s broadcast led to violent demonstration in parts of the country.

Meanwhile, the FG counsel, M.S. Labaran asked the court to refuse Kanu’s application and direct the prosecution to open its case in line with the practice direction of the Federal High Court.

He said the application lacked substance and that it was too early for Ozekhome to go into the substance of “the case which is yet to be heard.”

On the status of IPOB, Labaran said there is no stay of execution order on the court verdict that proscribed the group.

“The position as at today is that IPOB is a proscribed organization duly proscribed by the process of law,” he said.

“With respect to jurisdiction, Section 32 of Terrorism Act states that the FHC has jurisdiction to try offenses anywhere it is committed”, Labaran said praying the judge to “ignore and discountenance Ozekhome’s “line of argument”.

Labaran also maintained that assuming there were errors in the charges, the law adequately takes care of it by allowing for the framing or altering of the charge as the case may be.

But Kanu’s lawyer raised objection to Labaran’s argument, saying that the judge cannot be forced to frame a charge for the prosecution.

He said in open court that the federal government, not having any case against Kanu, just did general denial to the issues in their preliminary objection.

He queried why the FG did not give any explanation to all the points he made in his application.

Having heard all their arguments, Justice Binta Nyako adjourned.

“I am adjourning this case to April 8 for ruling,” she said.