Ozekhome said, “You are accusing Kanu of making some broadcast. You didn’t say where these broadcasts were made.”
Although not yet uhuru, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has a lot to cheer for. This is because Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, on Friday, struck out eight of the 15 terrorism and felony charges preferred against him by the Federal Government.
Justice Nyako freed Nnamdi Kanu on the eight counts while ruling on a preliminary objection filed by the IPOB leader.
“In this instant preliminary objection application, I have read the counts and come to the conclusion that counts six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 and 14 have not disclosed any offence against the defendant.
“‘Counts one, two, three, four, five, eight and 15 show some allegations, which the defendant has to answer.
“The court shall proceed to try the defendant on those counts,” Justice Nyako said.
Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, had asked the court in a 36-paragraph affidavit to quash the entire charges for being defective and baseless.
He argued that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the charges brought against his client by the prosecuting team.
“We are praying for an order striking out, quashing and dismissing the amended 15-count charge for being incompetent,” he said.
Ozekhome also prayed for “An order discharging and acquitting the defendant of the charges where same has been dismissed by the court”.
Read Also: Rendition from Kenya: Nnamdi Kanu sues FG, Buhari, Malami, demands N25b
According to him, looking at the criteria of the entire charge, it did not disclose any prima facie evidence.
Ozekhome said, “You are accusing Kanu of making some broadcast. You didn’t say where these broadcasts were made.”
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) said his client was unlawfully renditioned from Kenya in violation of international protocol on extradition.
However, counsel to the Federal Government, S.M Labaran, urged the court to dismiss Kanu’s application and order him to open his case.
“The application lacks substance. We therefore, urge your Lordship to gracefully refuse this application and direct the prosecution to open its case in accordance with the practice of the Federal High Court.”
Labaran argued that the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter going by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
“With respect to jurisdiction, Section 32 of the Terrorism Act states that the FHC has jurisdiction to try offences anywhere it is committed,” he said.
