Nnamdi Kanu appeals judge’s decision against his objection to the court’s jurisdiction.
Leading member of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has appealed the Federal High Court Abuja’s June 19 decision by Justice Binta Nyako, which rejected his challenge to the court’s authority to try him.
Kanu filed the notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja through Alloy Ejimakor, his principal lawyer. This was disclosed in a statement by Ejimakor.
“I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal in Abuja earlier today against the June 19, 2024, ruling of Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, refusing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s application, objecting to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to subject him to trial,” the statement says in part.
“The objection is based primarily on seven grounds, which are found in the Constitution, the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, and other relevant legislation.”
The single respondent will be the attorney for the Federal Government of Nigeria, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SIR
HIS EXCELLENCY, RT. HON. AHMADU UMARU FINTIRI
HAPPY 59TH BIRTHDAY, YOUR EXCELLENCY! The Governing Council, Management, Staff and entire University Community of Adamawa State University, Mubi, heartily felicitate with Your Excellency on the joyous occasion of your 59th birthday. We celebrate your commitment to educational advancement and the development of Adamawa State. May Almighty God grant you sound health, divine wisdom, long life and greater accomplishments. Happy 59th Birthday, Your Excellency!
Professor Clement Augustine, Vice Chancellor, ADSU, Mubi
“Take notice that the appellant, dissatisfied with the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, coram: B.F.M. Nyako, J., delivered on June 19, 2024, particularly set out in Paragraph 2 doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja, upon the grounds set out in Paragraph 3 below, and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the reliefs set out in Paragraph 4 of this Notice of Appeal,” the notice of appeal continued.
Ground one: Legal mistake: The learned trial judge made a legal mistake and seriously harmed the appellant when she ruled that “the main claim in this application deals with the counts of charge the defendant is facing.” Eight of the initial counts were dismissed in a careful decision by this Court, which kept these counts of charges. The primary problem is that the Defendant has an appeal option if they disagree with the counts of charges that have been retained.