DailyrecordNg …Nigeria's hottest news blog
Related Articles
Kanu is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, and is being held in the custody of the Department of State Security in Abuja for allegedly running a proscribed group, jumping bail and treason.
Ejimakor stated that “The ruling today by Justice Binta of Federal High Court, Abuja, was not unexpected. There is absolutely no way she can proceed with the trial of Nnamdi Kanu in view of the jurisdictional barriers created by the judgments of Court of Appeal and that of the Federal High Court, Umuahia.
“To cap it all, the matter is also pending before the Supreme Court on appeal. No trial court can proceed with any trial that is burdened by these triple factors”
Recall that the federal government’s legal team, led by the director of Public Prosecution, Ministry of Justice, Mr. M.B. Abubakar, had approached the court on a fresh charge against Kanu after the Court of Appeals, Abuja, quashed and discharged Kanu in all the charges earlier preferred against him on the ground that the process of his arrest from Kenya to Nigeria amounted to extraordinary rendition.
During today’s proceeding, Kanu, who is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, did not appear in court.
Abubakar had told Justice Nyako that Kanu ‘declined to come to court today’.
According to him, “As at last week, the defendant was intimated of this sitting and he did not object. However, when I called the office this morning, I was informed that the defendant woke up and declined to come to court.
“All entreaties and pleas were made but he refused to come to court.”
Kanu’s lead counsel Mike Ozekhome, SAN, told the court that, “My Lord, this is totally strange to me because this is a person that has never hidden his intention to always be in court.
“In fact, even in processes we filed at both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the defendant said he would want to be present in court for hearing of all the matters.”
However, Kanu’s lead counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, stated that Kanu was not served the necessary documents.
He also informed the trial judge about the Court of Appeal judgement which quashed and discharged the 15-count charge preferred against his client by the FG.
He further argued that since the federal government had appealed to the Supreme Court to set aside the judgement and his client is also challenging the order that stayed the execution of the verdict, it was better for the matter to be adjourned sine die.
