The apprehended leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has actually appealed versus the choice of a Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja dismissing his objection to his trial extension.
Kanu, in a notification of appeal dated and submitted March 28 through his group of attorneys led by Aloy Ejimakor, hoped the Court of Appeal, Abuja to permit the appeal and reserve the high court’s choice.
Reports reveal that the IPOB leader had actually submitted an initial objection looking for an order for some conditions to be fulfilled by the Federal Government before his trial at FHC might continue.
He had actually declared that the Department of State Service (DSS) workers typically took files of his attorneys throughout visitation, stopped his attorneys from remembering, been all ears on his assessment with his attorneys on matters referring to his defence, to name a few.
He declared that he had actually not been provided appropriate time and centers to safeguard himself in accordance with Section 36( 6 )(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as modified).
Ad
Justice Binta Nyako of a FHC had, in a judgment on March 19, decreased to approve the objection of the apprehended IPOB leader.
The judge, who purchased sped up hearing of the trial, likewise dismissed his application for bail.
Kanu, in the notification of appeal, noted the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the sole participant.
He argued that the high court erred in law when the court presumed jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of the criminal trial versus him when he was glaringly rejected the constitutional right to reasonable trial.
Ad
He declared that he was rejected appropriate centers to get ready for the defence of the criminal claims versus him and his right to counsel of his own option, therefore occasioning a severe miscarriage of justice.
“The rejection of the appellant (Kanu) the chance to connect and inform his counsel on what line of defences the appellant tends to upset in the high court and count on was sufficiently given the attention of the high court by movement.
“The high court stopped working and ignored to make essential orders that would secure the appellant’s aforesaid rights however rather held that the court can not determine how the participant performs its work,” he stated.
He stated the trial court had the power to purchase the participant to stop and desist from interfering with his constitutional.
Kanu stated the lower court had the power to purchase an alternative custodial plan or non-custodial plan for him, where it is difficult for the participant to comply or where the participant continues in the act.
He stated: “Denial of the appellant’s right to appropriate centers to prepare defence as preserved in Section 36 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution is a jurisdictional concerns in the lack of which the high court can not presume or continue with the jurisdiction over the case unless and till such centers are accorded to the appellant.”
Kanu argued that though he had actually hoped the court to stop the DSS declared unconstitutional acts of by force taking and copying personal legal files given him by his attorneys indicated for his defence of the charges versus him, the court decreased to approve the plea.
He stated the trial judge erred in law when the court purchased for sped up hearing regardless of the regularly rejection of the participant to manage him the right to sufficient center to get ready for his defence of the charges levelled versus him and his right to counsel.
According to him, the order for sped up hearing of the case in face of the constitutional breaches of reasonable hearing/trial rights of the appellant is a credence to the participant to continue on the unconstitutional rejection of the appellant his right to appropriate centers to get ready for his defence and his right to counsel of his option.
“In today case, where Sections 36 (6) (b) and (c) of the Constitution are broken by the participant versus the appellant, the high court does not have the jurisdiction to hear and or continue with the hearing of the case,” he included.
The IPOB leader, for that reason, hoped the appellate court to permit the appeal, abandon the judgment of the lower court for the high court to decrease jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of the case unless and till he is approved his right to reasonable hearing under Section 36( 6 )( 6 )(b) and (c) of the constitution.
He prompted the Appeal Court for the trial court to buy an alternative custodial or non-custodial plan totally free of disturbance with his stated constitutional right to reasonable hearing.
He similarly looked for an order setting aside the order for sped up hearing of the case in the scenarios of the case where he is not permitted centers to get ready for the defence of the charges versus him and rejected his right to counsel.
Kanu looked for a stay of procedures pending when the participant manages him the constitutional safeguards of being managed appropriate centers to get ready for his defence and his unconfined right to counsel.