By Deborah Onyofufeke
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu, is set to be re-arraigned by the Federal Government, on an amended six-count treasonable felony charge.
On Wednesday, a member of Kanu’s legal team, who requested anonymity, disclosed that the FG had in the amended charge, listed some lawyers representing the embattled IPOB leader, including Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor and Mr Maxwell Opara, as accomplices of the defendant.
The FG had alleged that the listed lawyers who have been tagged accomplices, were constantly in contact with Kanu after he jumped bail and fled the country.
The amendment had come on the day trial Justice Binta Nyako, fixed to hear an application, which Kanu filed, to be released on bail, pending the determination of the charge against him.
Recall that Kanu was subsequently re-arrested and returned back to the country from Kenya, in controversial circumstances.
Trial Justice Binta Nyako had on April 8, struck out eight out of the 15-count treasonable felony charge FG preferred against Kanu.
Justice Nyako held that the charges were mere repetitions that did not disclose any offence that could be sustained by the proof of evidence before the court.
FG had in the counts that were struck out, alleged that Kanu had through his broadcasts, incited members of the public to not only stage a violent revolution, but to attack police officers and also destroy public facilities in Lagos State.
While the court threw out counts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,13 and 14 of the charge, it okayed Kanu’s trial on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15.
The ruling followed an application Kanu filed to quash the entire charge against him, which he insisted was manifestly incompetent and legally defective.
The IPOB leader, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him on the strenght of an incompetent charge.
Nigeria has highest record of kidnapping, terrorism in the world –Saraki
Ozekhome (SAN), further told the court that his client was “unlawfully, brutally and extraordinarily rendition from Kenya without his consent”.
He argued that since some of the allegations FG levelled against Kanu, were purportedly committed outside the country, the high court, therefore, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the charge.
“The charges appears to give this court a global jurisdiction over offences that were allegedly committed by the Defendant, without specifying the location or date the said offences were committed”.
He argued that under the Federal High Court Act, such charge must disclose specific location where the offence was committed.
More so, Ozekhome contended that Kanu could not be charged with belonging to an unlawful organization since the action of FG, in proscribing the IPOB, is still subject of legal dispute at the Court of Appeal and therefore subjoined.
Consequently, he urged the court to dismiss the charge, as well as to discharge and acquit the defendant.
However, FG’s lawyer, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran, opposed the application and urged the court to allow the prosecution to open its case.
He argued that Kanu’s application would touch the substance of the case that is yet to be heard.
Oshoala credits Barcelona teammates for Pichichi award
“The position as at now is that the IPOB is a proscribed organization which was duly proscribed through the due process of law”.
He argued that Section 32 of the Terrorism Prevention Act imbued the court with the requisite jurisdiction to handle the trial.
On Kanu’s bail request, Ozekhome, maintained that the amended charge contained bailable offences, while FG’s lawyer, Labaran, argued that the defendant betrayed the previous discretion the court exercised in his favour when he jumped bail and escaped from the country.
He argued that it was owing to Kanu’s conduct that the court revoked his bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
