Advertisement

Nnamdi Kanu challenges Justice Nyako’s jurisdiction judgment at an appeals court

Posted by

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB, traveled to the Abuja Division of the Appeal Court on Tuesday in response to the Abuja Federal High Court’s denial of his request to contest the court’s jurisdiction to hear his case.

Kanu had applied on June 19 to contest the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako,’s ruling to hold his trial.

Nonetheless, Kanu filed a notice of appeal against Justice Binta Nyako’s decision with the Abuja Appeal Court via his principal attorney, Aloy Ejimakor.

In the court filing, Ejimakor claimed that when Justice Nyako stated, “The main claim in this application deals with the counts of charge the Defendant is facing,” she committed a legal error and caused a serious miscarriage of justice against Kanu. Following a thoughtful decision dismissing eight of the initial charges, this court kept these counts of charge.

The primary concern is that the Defendant has the ability to appeal if they disagree with the counts of the charges that were kept.

“Earlier today, I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal in Abuja against the 19th June 2024 ruling of Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, refusing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to subject him to trial,” stated Ejimakor.

According to Ejimakor, there was a serious injustice committed against the appellant when the trial court only took into account one of the seven “jurisdictional” grounds mentioned in the preliminary objection. This one ground, which bordered on repealing the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), was the only one that the court considered.

“The trial court denied the preliminary objection even after it held that “all the arguments of counsel may be correct but it will require the court to take evidence before it can pronounce on the arguments,” the learned trial judge erred in law, he said, and this caused a grave miscarriage of justice against the appellant.

“The trial court erred and/or otherwise misdirected itself on the law when it held that the said arguments will require evidence before the trial court can make its pronouncement. Despite this, the trial court was right to hold that the appellant’s counsel’s argument is well-founded or may be correct.

“The learned trial court committed a legal error when it disregarded the obvious fact that the Respondent utterly failed to refute or disprove the Appellant’s Affidavit testimony and even conceded to parts of the Appellant’s depositions.

“When the trial court determined that the Notice of Preliminary Objection was an abuse of judicial process and thus struck it out, the learned trial judge committed a legal error and caused a serious miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *