The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh application before the Court of Appeal, seeking to halt further proceedings in his ongoing trial before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The move comes just days ahead of the November 20th date fixed for judgment in his trial.
According to court documents dated November 10 and filed on November 12, Kanu’s legal team brought the motion pursuant to Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), praying the appellate court to stay all proceedings at the trial court pending the determination of his appeal.
The IPOB leader, through his counsel, is urging the Court of Appeal to consider critical questions surrounding the fairness and legality of the ongoing proceedings. He is seeking an order to stay the trial court’s proceedings pending the determination of the appeal, a ruling on the trial court’s handling of his “No Case Submission,” a determination of the court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the charges under which he is being tried, and a review of the trial court’s decision to foreclose his right to call witnesses in his defence.
Kanu’s legal team argues that continuing the trial without addressing these issues would amount to a violation of his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The application adds a new dimension to the long-running legal battle between the Federal Government and the IPOB leader, who has been in custody since his controversial rendition from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal in Abuja had discharged and acquitted Nnamdi Kanu of all terrorism charges filed against him by the Federal Government, ruling that his extraordinary rendition was unlawful and stripped the trial court of jurisdiction to continue the case. However, the Federal Government appealed the judgment at the Supreme Court, which later set aside the appellate court’s decision, allowing the trial to resume.
Since then, Kanu’s lawyers have continued to challenge the competence of the charges and the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that their client cannot be tried under circumstances that allegedly breach both domestic and international laws.
The Court of Appeal is expected to communicate a date for the hearing of the motion before the November 20 judgment in the Federal High Court.
