Kanu asks A’Court to stop Nov 20 judgment at trial court

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

Ahead of the November 20 judgment, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Court of Appeal to stay further proceedings in his trial before Justice James Omotosho of Abuja Federal High Court.

Before now, Kanu had filed a motion before the trial court for an order arresting its scheduled judgment on the ground that he can’t be tried on the basis of a repealed law, the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.

He took a step further by proceeding to the appellate court, urging it to stay delivery of judgment pending the determination of the appeal.

Specifically, the motion brought pursuant to section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution, is seeking an order staying the proceedings of the trial court in case No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, currently before Justice Omotosho pending the hearing and determination of the appeal in the case, particularly in its decision on the no-case submission and its refusal to determine its jurisdiction and the validity of the counts under which the appellant is being tried and its foreclosure of the applicant’s right to defend the case by fielding witnesses.”

He predicated his action on the ground that he had filed a notice of appeal against the September 26 ruling of Justice Omotosho, which dismissed his no-case submission and ordered him to defend the terrorism allegations against him.

He stated that if the application was not granted  he would be unlawfully convicted without being afforded the opportunity of knowing the validity of the counts, the jurisdiction of the trial court and offering defence on merit. In the said appeal, he is contending that the Federal High Court was wrong to have dismissed his no case submission without going through the jurisdiction and validity of the charges he raised.

In a motion on notice brought pursuant to section 24(3) of the Court of Appeal Act 2004, Order 6, rule 2 and 4, of the Court of Appeal rules 2021; section 15 of the Court of Appeal and section 36 of the 1999 constitution, Kanu explained that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate, but due to exceptional circumstances affecting his access to legal representation and case documents while in detention.

In addition, he stated that now that he had assumed personal conduct of his defence as appellant in person, he had acted promptly and diligently upon gaining access to the trial and materials needed to appeal.

Among others, he argued that the lower court was wrong to have upheld the charges because the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed, and therefore, no valid charges against him.

He equally contended that the Constitutional issue of jurisdiction was not addressed by the judge in the considered ruling on no-case submission.

The appellant argued that Justice Omotosho did not evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the cross examination to determine whether the adduced evidence had been discredited.

“That he sought to call 23 witnesses only when the issue of jurisdiction had been determined but which the court refused to do and stating that such would be done in the final judgment.

“That the judge foreclosed his right to defend himself from the charges, while refusing to rule on his objections to validity of some of the counts in the charges.

Kanu said that if his request to stop the judgment delivery was not granted by the Court of Appeal, he may be unlawfully convicted and sentenced to jail.

Besides, he feared that if the November 20 judgment is delivered, his appeal against the no-case submission would become a mere academic exercise and a fait accompli would therefore be foisted on the Court of Appeal.

He submitted that neither himself nor the Federal High Court would be prejudiced if the application is granted.

In a 13-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion, Kanu raised the issue of disobedience to Supreme Court order on the validity of count seven in the charges against him and the failure to apply mandatory test under section 303 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

According to him, the Supreme Court made it clear that count seven was no longer an offence in Nigeria, having been allegedly repealed.

In the affidavit he personally deposed to, he said his pending appeal against the no case submission, raised substantial recondite and Constitutional issues of law.

He specifically averred that counts one to six in the charges against him were predicated on repealed statute, hence, no validity charges against him.