The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday declined to entertain the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu’s objection to his terrorism trial and ordered him to open his defence on Friday.
Trial judge James Omotosho ruled that the issues raised by Mr Kanu in objection to the court’s jurisdiction to conduct his trial had been previously decided.
|
|
But the judge said the IPOB leader would have the opportunity to revisit the issues in his final written address if he still feels strongly about them at the end of trial.
“All preliminary objections shall not be entertained at this point, and the order of the court stands,” Mr Omotosho ruled.
|
|
|
|---|
The judge postponed the commencement of Mr Kanu’s defence, earlier scheduled for Thursday, to Friday.
“I appeal to the defendant to make use of the opportunity given to him to enter his defence, or waive it if he wants,” the judge said.
PREMIUM TIMES earlier reported that Mr Kanu abruptly announced the disengagement of his Kanu Agabi-led legal team during Thursday’s proceedings.
Mr Kanu, who faces terrorism charges over his violence-inciting campaigns for the independence of South-east Nigeria as sovereign Biafra state, told the judge he was willing to defend himself without the help of a lawyer.
Why I object to the terrorism trial – Kanu
After the withdrawal of his legal team, Mr Kanu, through an oral application, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to try him.
He said that, on the face of the records before the court, there were four jurisdictional defects in the matter.
First, he argued that the federal government was in contempt of an order of the Court of Appeal. According to him, although the appellate court had discharged him, he remained in detention for 14 more months.
“A contemnor cannot come to the court to seek any remedy because he who goes to equity must appear with clean hands,” he said.
But Mr Kanu’s assertion sidestepped the later decision of the Supreme Court in December 2023, which overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling and ordered him to return to the Federal High Court in Abuja to face his trial.
Secondly, Mr Kanu argued that the law under which he was being tried had been repealed, and therefore he could not be prosecuted under a repealed Act.
He also contended that the prosecution had denied him proper consultation with his lawyers during the nearly five years he had been in custody.
“If not for your mercy, my Lord, to grant us three hours to hold a conference in this courtroom, I would have been compelled to enter my defence in a capital offence without proper consultation with my lawyers,” he said.
Mr Kanu further alleged that the medical report on which the court relied to declare him fit to stand trial was forged.
He said the report was dated 23 September, whereas the court’s order for examination was made on 26 September.
He told the court that nobody took his blood or urine sample for any test, claiming the report was manufactured.
Based on the above, Mr Kanu asked the court to terminate the case “today if possible.”
Responding, the prosecution lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, said all that Mr Kanu stated “was not based on any known court procedure,” adding that he had merely entertained the court.
Mr Kanu reiterated that he had not had enough time to prepare for his defence, especially since the matter was a capital trial. He said he also needed time to gather the witnesses he had listed.
Onyechi Ikpeazu, who used to be among Mr Kanu’s legal team, asked for permission to address the court, not as the defendant’s lawyer but as a friend of the court.
He appealed for an adjournment, even if until tomorrow, to allow the defendant to gather his thoughts and prepare his defence.
Judge insists Kanu must open his defence
On the matter of preliminary objection, the judge said most of the issues raised by Mr Kanu had already been determined, particularly on jurisdiction, but he was “not foreclosed from raising them again in his final written address if he is not satisfied with the ruling.”
On the issue of the alleged forged medical report, the judge maintained that he had ruled on the matter, noting that when the report was tendered before the court, none of the parties objected to it.
He said his earlier ruling therefore remained valid.
On the issue of time, the judge maintained that he would not go back on his decision to grant accelerated hearing.
The matter was adjourned till Friday, 24 October.
Chequered history
PREMIUM TIMES reported that Mr Kanu’s decision to disengage t lawyers who took over his defence just this year sparked a surprise, coming barely 24 hours after he met with the defence team preparatory to Thursday’s proceedings.
It came three days after a protest led by human rights activist Omoyele Sowore in Abuja on Monday called for an unconditional release of Mr Kanu from custody.
The IPOB leader’s break with his lawyers on Thursday introduces a new twist in a trial with chequered history dating back to 2015.
Mr Kanu was first arrested in September 2015 over his agitation through radio broadcasts for the secession of the Igbo-dominated South-east from Nigeria as a sovereign Biafra nation.
The case, since kicking off in 2015, has passed through four judges of the Federal High Court in Abuja, the current one being the latest, and paraded successive defence teams.
The Biafra agitator was released on bail from the custody of the SSS in 2017, but subsequently fled the country after soldiers invaded his home in Afara-Ukwu, Abia State, in September that year.
This halted his trial until he was rearrested and brought back to Nigeria in June 2021.
Mr Kanu, a citizen of Nigeria and the United Kingdom, is standing trial on terrorism charges that accuse him of inciting violence that led to killings and destruction of property for years in the South-east states.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja freed him in October 2022, striking out the terrorism charges against him on the grounds of the illegality of the manner of bringing him back from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021.
But the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in December 2023 and ordered the trial to continue at the Federal High Court.
READ ALSO: Nigerian military confirms fierce battles, says terrorists used armed drones, RPGs
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no Nigerian law that prohibits the use of “illegally obtained evidence for the trial of a defendant.”
The prosecution subsequently opened and closed its case with five witnesses.
Mr Kanu’s decision to disengage his legal team on Thursday, when he was scheduled to open his defence, comes on the heels of an application he personally signed on Tuesday, listing his proposed witnesses.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
