By Godwin Tsa
The trial of leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has been adjourned to November 10 after he pleaded not guilty to a seven-count charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.
This is as he urged the Federal High Court to decline its jurisdiction to adjudicate over the charge filed against him.
The IPOB leader noted that from the amended charge, the only element requisite to constitute and found liability for incitement allegedly occurred wholly and entirely in London, United Kingdom and not anywhere within Nigeria.
In his notice of preliminary objections, Kanu argued that the alleged broadcasts were not shown to have occurred at sea or on the international waters abutting Nigeria, adding: “I know as a fact that London, United Kingdom, is a sovereign state under International Municipal Law and has municipal laws punishing criminal offences.”
Kanu stated this through his counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, shortly after he was re-arraigned on the amended charge before Justice Binta Nyako of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court, yesterday.
Kanu, who jumped bail following the chaos that characterised the military invasion of his residence was in June 2021 re-arrested in Kenya and extradited to face his trial.
He was first arrested in a Lagos hotel in 2015 by operatives of the Department of State Service (DSS) and arraigned alongside four others in 2016.
At yesterday’s trial that was characterised by heavy security presence, Kanu arrived the court by 8am in a white Fendi designers cloth and was ushered into the courtroom at 10am by security operatives. He took his fresh plea to the amended charges at about 10:45am.
But he pleaded not guilty even as his lawyer had requested he be transferred to the custody of the correctional service centre. Justice Nyako, however, declined to grant the request on the grounds that it would be in the interest of Kanu to remain with the DSS.
Nyako adjourned to November 10 for hearing of Kanu’s application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to try him and the competence of the charge.
Among issues raised in the Notice of Preliminary Objection are that the said charge did not in anyway link the defendant to the charge and the alleged offences were committed in the United Kingdom, amongst others.
However, Ohaneze Ndigbo has accused the Federal Government of conducting a secret trial on Kanu.
Chief Ralph Uwazurike, who spoke alongside former Anambra governor, Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife, said the apex-Igbo socio-cultural group condemned the trial in its entirety because they were barred from covering the proceedings.
Similarly, Senator representing Anambra South Senatorial District, Senator Ifeanyi Ubah, also condemned the action of the Federal Government, claiming he ought not to be barred from witnessing the proceedings as a federal lawmaker. He lamented that even after filing a case in the matter, he was still denied access.
Journalists were also barred from entering the courtroom.This was despite the fact that the journalists had forwarded their names to the court and DSS for coverage of the proceedings.
Kanu, in the preliminary objections filed by counsel said: “I also know as a fact that jurisdiction is extrinsic to adjudication. It is conferred on a Court, aliunde. It is not intrinsic. That I know as a matter of fact, that as the element necessary to constitute incitement in the alleged several broadcasts of the Defendant/Applicant occurred in London, United Kingdom, and not in Nigeria, the court in Nigeria has no jurisdiction to try the defendant/applicant on any charge founded on any such alleged incitement, even if the defendant/applicant enters within the geographical boundaries of Nigeria.”
The affidavit in support deposed to by Chinwe Umeche equally averred that “I also know as a matter of fact that the alleged offences for which the defendant was charged, do not constitute terrorism offences in London, United Kingdom, where they were allegedly committed.
“That I am further aware that there is an obligation on the Attorney General of the Federation, to maintain international co-operation for compliance with international treaties on terrorism.
“That the defendant was abducted from Kenya and consequently extraordinarily rendered to Nigeria, without firstly subjecting him to extradition proceedings in Kenya. I know as a fact thatamended would amount to allowing the complainant to benefit from their illegality and wrongdoing.
“That I am aware that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, and no party should be allowed to benefit from his wrong doing.
“That I know as a matter of fact, that the extraordinary rendition of the defendant robs the Honourable Court of the requisite jurisdiction of trying the defendant on counts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Amended Charge.
“That counts 1, 2 and 3 of the amended charge were brought under a non-existent law. That count 3 of the amended charge relates to an offence allegedly committed in Ubuluisiuzor, in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.
“That I know as a matter of fact that an offence can only be tried by a court exercising jurisdiction over the place or area where the alleged offence was committed. That counts 5, 6 and 7 of the amended charge do not disclose an offence known to law. That there is no proof of evidence attached to the amended charge filed against the defendant. That even the purported proof of evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution does not disclose any prima facie case against the defendant.
“That from the list of exhibits and witnesses attached to the amended charge, there is nothing relating to or linking the defendant to the 7-count charge, particularly counts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of thereof.
“That no final pronouncement has been made on the purported proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra, as the said purported proscription, is a subject matter of appeal in Appeal No: CA/A/214/2018, pending before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.
“That the defendant/applicant cannot be arraigned anew or tried for an offence when the judgment that made a pronouncement on the instrument constituting a state of affairs as such an offence, is the subject matter of an appeal. That it will be most unjust, painful, wicked and unfair for the Applicant to undergo the rigours of a full trial, when the amended charge as constituted, does not disclose a prima facie case against him.
“That there is no ground for this Honorable Court to proceed with the trial against the applicant in the circumstance of this case.
“That the Court has the powers and a duty to stop a prosecution which on the facts creates abuse and injustice.
“That it will be in the best interest of justice if the present seven-count amended charge is struck out and or dismissed.”
