JUST IN: Court Cancels More Than Half Of 15 Charges Laid Against Nnamdi Kanu

On Friday, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed 8 of the 15 treasonable felony charges filed by the Federal Government against Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB.

The court particularly knocked down counts 6,7,9,10,11,12,13, and 14 of the charge in a judgment issued by trial Justice Binta Nyako.

The decision came after Kanu submitted an application to have the entire case against him dismissed.

Kanu argued in his motion, which was submitted through his legal team led by Chief Mike Ozekhome(SAN), that the charge against him was legally deficient.

He claimed that the court lacked the authority to try him on the basis of incompetence.

According to Ozekhome, his client was “unlawfully, brutally and extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya without his consent”.

He stated that because some of the allegations made by the FG against Kanu were allegedly committed outside of Nigeria, the high court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

“The charges appear to give this court a global jurisdiction over offenses that were allegedly committed by the Defendant, without specifying the location or date the said offenses were committed,” he said.

He stated that under the Federal High Court Act, such a charge must include the precise location of the crime.

Furthermore, Ozekhome argued that Kanu could not be charged with being a member of an illegal organization because the FG’s action in outlawing the IPOB is currently being litigated in the Court of Appeal and is thus pending.

As a result, Ozekhome requested that the charges be dismissed, as well as the Defendant be discharged and acquitted of the whole 15-count accusation filed against him.

He said, “This case is hollow, there is nothing in it. It is dead on arrival. Elements constituting the offense must occur within the jurisdiction of this court.”

The FG’s counsel, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran, however, asked the court to dismiss Kanu’s appeal and order the prosecution to present its case.

He suggested that the appeal would interfere with the content of the case, which was still pending.

“The position as of now is that the IPOB is a proscribed organization which was duly proscribed through the due process of law,” he said.

He claimed that Section 32 of the Terrorism Prevention Act gave the court the necessary authority to hear the case.

He said, “We urged my lord to refuse the application to pave way for the commencement of the trial in ernest.

“This is a matter that has been pending for over five years now.”