Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed a motion seeking to arrest the judgment of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court scheduled for November 20.
Justice James Omotosho had, on November 7, fixed November 20 for judgment in the trial of Mr Kanu on alleged terrorism offences.
Mr Omotosho fixed the date after Mr Kanu’s defence was foreclosed following his insistence that he would not enter his defence under a repealed law.
However, in the motion on notice marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, personally filed by Mr Kanu, the IPOB leader sought seven reliefs.
In the application dated November 10 and filed on the same date, Mr Kanu is seeking an order arresting the delivery of judgment in charge no. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, which is scheduled for November 29.
He alleged that the proceedings were conducted under a repealed and non-existent statute and in disobedience to the Supreme Court’s directive contrary to Section 287(1) CFRN 1999.”
The IPOB leader sought a declaration that by virtue of Section 287(1) CFRN, the trial court was constitutionally bound to give effect to the Supreme Court’s finding that Count 15 (now Count 7) “does not exist in law,” and its failure rendered all subsequent proceedings null and void.
Mr Kanu sought a declaration that the court’s failure 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.
He also sought 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 of any Kenyan judicial validation or extradition order.
Besides, Mr Kanu sought “a declaration that the plea purportedly taken on 29th March, 2025, under a repealed and non-existent statute and in violation of Section 220 ACJA 2015 is void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction.
“And forged materials amount to constructive denial of a fair hearing under Section 36(6) CFRN.
“An order setting aside all proceedings and orders made by Hon. Justice Omotosho in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 for want of jurisdiction and violation of constitutional supremacy.”
Mr Kanu, who had disengaged his lawyers, opted to represent himself in the charge before Justice Omotosho.
He had questioned the court’s jurisdiction to try him based on the charge, which he claimed was invalid on the grounds that it was based on repealed laws.
Mr Kanu submitted that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, and the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45 LFN 2004, on which the charge was hinged, had been repealed.
He further argued that the court’s failure to take judicial notice of the laws’ repeal rendered the proceedings conducted so far in the case a nullity.
Mr Kanu claimed that his trial was a conspiracy and had been predetermined, accusing the British authorities of wanting him to be convicted and jailed.
He alleged that he learnt of the British authorities’ intention about his fate about one and a half years ago.
But Justice Omotosho said he was unaware of Mr Kanu’s claim.
The judge, who said he had no relationship with the British authorities, also clarified that he was not the judge during the period Mr Kanu was referred to.
The IPOB leader insisted that he would only enter the witness box to give his testimony after he had been told under which law he was being tried.
Justice Omotosho, in his ruling, held that Kanu, having exhausted the six days allocated to him by the court to conduct his defence, had waived his right to do so.
The judge said he would have extended the days allocated to Mr Kanu to conduct his defence if he had opted to open it.
He said Mr Kanu, having failed to utilise the opportunity given to him to conduct his defence, could not claim to have been denied the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing.
“This court has given opportunity to the defendant under Section 36 as required by the constitution, and I will not allow this to continue.
“It is based on this, without hesitation, that I say that the defendant has waived his right,” Justice Omotosho said and adjourned the matter until November 20 for judgment.
(NAN)