Appeal Filed by Nnamdi Kanu Against Federal High Court's Jurisdiction Ruling

 Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has lodged an appeal against the June 19 ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako. This ruling dismissed Kanu's objection to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to try him.

Kanu's Special Counsel, Chief Aloy Ejimakor, filed the notice of appeal on Tuesday at the Court of Appeal in Abuja. Ejimakor stated, "Earlier today (Tuesday), I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal in Abuja challenging the ruling delivered by Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako on June 19, 2024. The ruling rejected Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s application objecting to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court."

"The grounds of objection are seven, primarily based on provisions of the Constitution, the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, and other relevant statutes."

"The appellant, dissatisfied with the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division delivered on June 19, 2024, appeals to the Court of Appeal, Abuja. At the hearing of the appeal, we will seek the reliefs outlined in this Notice of Appeal."

"We also notify that the individuals directly affected by this appeal are listed in Paragraph 5."

Ground one: Error in law: The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and caused a grave miscarriage of justice against the Appellant when the trial Court maintained, "The main issue in this application concerns the charges faced by the Defendant."

"These charges were retained by this Court following a considered ruling that dismissed 8 of the original counts. The core issue is that if the Defendant has objections to the retained charges, the recourse is through appeal."

"Particulars of the error: The Court's ruling stating, 'The main issue is that if the Defendant has objections to the retained charges, the recourse is through appeal,' is a misstatement of the law for the following reasons:

a. As a matter of law, the Appellant, subsequent to the Supreme Court's remand to the lower court, is entitled to raise additional preliminary objections on grounds not previously raised in the objection that reduced the initial counts from 15 to 7.

b. As a matter of established law, the Appellant can only appeal after the trial court has ruled on the present preliminary objection, not before. It is significantly unusual in our legal system to suggest (as the trial court did) that the appeal of the seven counts remanded from the Supreme Court should precede or substitute the current preliminary objection raised before the lower court. Therefore, the Appellant cannot be expected to proceed with an appeal concerning the validity or otherwise of the counts when these issues were never raised or ruled upon by the trial court."

"2. The previous jurisdictional objections raised by the Appellant against the former 15 counts, which were adjudicated by the Supreme Court, were based on the Extraordinary Rendition of the Appellant and other grounds not addressed in the preliminary objection that is the subject of this Appeal."

"3. The Supreme Court, in its decision, did not preclude the Appellant from raising additional jurisdictional issues affecting the retained counts/charges. Instead, the Supreme Court had actually anticipated (or pre-empted from its judgment) further objections to the jurisdiction of the trial Court when, in its lead judgment on Page 46, the apex court stated, 'In the above circumstances, the duty to consider and pronounce on the other issues in this Appeal is abated, particularly since the trial court is vested with the requisite jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the Respondent during which some of these issues may be raised or may arise.'"

"4. In addition to the above, particularly concerning the validity of the remaining or 'retained' Counts of Charge, the trial court conceded or correctly stated that 'the Supreme Court did not determine the validity of the counts,' thus resulting in a grave miscarriage by refusing to make such a determination when the current application addressed the validity of the retained counts."

Ground two: Error in law: The trial court erred in law by considering only one of the seven 'jurisdictional' grounds raised in the preliminary objection. This lone ground pertained to the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), thereby causing a grave miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.

"Particulars of the error: As evidenced by its ruling, the Honorable trial court did not address the following objections to its jurisdiction:

a. Regarding COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 (as amended in 2013) under which IPOB was proscribed and declared a terrorist group are inconsistent with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution and are thus void to the extent of the inconsistency.

b. Regarding COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, there exists a standing judgment of a High Court stating that the executive action leading to the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist group and its proscription is unconstitutional.

c. Count 3 of the charges against the Appellant is unconstitutional as it seeks to penalize the Appellant for an act that was not a crime at the time it occurred and is otherwise an abuse of process.

d. COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are incurably defective as the Appellant is misled by the failure to specify the place or locations where the alleged offenses were committed and the specific dates of the alleged broadcasts.

e. Count 15 does not comply with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, lacks any supporting evidence, and the law under which the Applicant is being tried for these Counts has otherwise been repealed."

"2. The failure of the trial Court to determine the aforementioned six (6) grounds is blatantly incorrect and a denial of the Appellant's right to a fair hearing, as the Appellant should know the competence or incompetence of the counts before being subjected to rigorous pretrial detention and trial over counts that are manifestly incompetent due to the grounds not determined by the trial court."

"3. Furthermore, in its consideration of the objection related solely to the repeal of TPAA 2013 and its ruling in that regard, the Honorable trial court erred by ruling against the established law that a repealed law can only sustain a completed or concluded prosecution, and where not concluded, the charges/counts become abated and incompetent."

"4. The binding decisions of Amona & ORS Vs. Incorporated Trustees of Omadino Development Association & Ors (2004) LPELR-12610 (CA) and NCAA Vs. Project Eagle Air Ltd & ORS (2021) LPELR-53105 (CA) regarding the incompetence of charges/counts founded on repealed laws were referenced to the trial court, but the court disregarded them and relied on no judicial or statutory authority to override the Appellant's Notice of Preliminary Objection."