Nnamdi Kanu asks court to stop Nov 20 judgment

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Federal High Court to stop the delivery of its judgment scheduled for November 20 in the terrorism charges against him.

In addition, he is seeking an order setting aside all proceedings and orders made by Justice James Omotosho in charge No FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 for want of jurisdiction and violation of constitutional supremacy.

Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court has fixed November 20 to deliver the judgment in charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, brought against him by the Federal Government.

But in a motion dated and filed on November 10, Kanu is seeking an order arresting the delivery of the judgment on the ground that the proceedings were conducted under a repealed and non-existing statute and in disobedience to the Supreme Court directive contrary to section 287 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

The motion signed and filed by Kanu was brought pursuant to sections 6 (6) (b), 36 (6) (a) and (12) and 287 (1) of the 1999 Constitution; sections 220, 233, 259 and 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015; sections 122 and 127 of the Evidence Act 2011 and section 76 (1) (d) (iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

The motion is further urging the court to declare that by virtue of section 287 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the trial court was constitutionally bound to give effect to the Supreme Court findings that count 15 (now count 7) “does not exist in law,” and its failure renders all subsequent proceedings null and void.

Kanu is equally seeking an order of court declaring that the failure of the trial court to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, contrary to section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, vitiates all steps taken thereunder.

A declaration that by virtue of section 76 (1) (d) (iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to try him in the absence of proof that the alleged conduct constituted an offence under Kenyan law or any Kenyan judicial validation or extradition law.

He wants a declaration that his plea purportedly taken on March 29, 2025 under a repealed and non-existent statute and in violation of section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, conferring jurisdiction on the trial court.

Meanwhile, the Nnamdi Kanu global defence consortium has asked Justice Omotosho not to proceed with the delivery of the November 20 judgment as doing so would amount to trampling upon the very foundation of the nation’s constitutional order — the non-derogable right to be heard.

In a statement signed by Onyedikachi Ifedi, the defence lawyers argued that the motion to arrest the judgment was lawful and constitutionally compelled acts of defence.

“It demands that the court obeys the rule of law before it speaks in the name of justice. Until the motion is heard and determined, no valid judgment can issue in FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

“Justice Omotosho stands at a defining juncture: to affirm the supremacy of the constitution or risk being recorded as a judge who pronounced judgment over silence,” the statement reads.