Nnamdi Kanu Condemns Justice Nyako’s Ruling, DSS Action, Heads To Appeal Court

The Abuja Federal High Court’s decision has been challenged to the Appeal Court by the legal team of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB.

Kanu’s legal team, under the direction of Lead Counsel Aloy Ejimakor, voiced displeasure with Justice Binta Nyako’s March 19, 2024, order from the Abuja Federal High Court.

The team told the Appeal Court that Kanu’s right to a fair trial under the Constitution was violated by the lower court.

They also noted that a serious miscarriage of justice was caused by the Department of State Services’ (DSS) failure to offer sufficient “facilities to prepare for the defence of the criminal allegations against the Appellant and his right to counsel of his own choice.”

“TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division coram: B.F.M Nyako, J. delivered on the 19th March, 2024, 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 reliefs as set out in Paragraph 4 hereof from the Court of Appeal,” states the notice of appeal filed by Ejimakor under charge number: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

“The Learned trial Court erred in law when the Court assumed jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the criminal trial against the Appellant when the Appellant is glaringly denied the constitutional right to fair trial with particular reference to denial of adequate facilities to prepare for the defence of the criminal allegations against the Appellant and his right to counsel of his own choice, thereby occasioning a grave miscarriage of justice.

“Fair hearing/trial bears the constitutional safeguards of ensuring that the Appellant is accorded the adequate facilities to prepare for the defence of the criminal allegations levelled against the Appellant.

“The denial of the Appellant the opportunity to interact and brief his counsel on what line of defences the Appellant tends to agitate in the trial court and rely on was adequately brought to the attention of the trial Court by Motion.

“The trial Court failed and neglected to make necessary orders that would protect the Appellant’s aforesaid rights but rather held that the Court cannot dictate how the Respondent carries out its work.

“The trial Court has the powers to order the Respondent (being the detaining authority) to cease and desist from interfering with Appellant’s constitutional/fair hearing right to adequate facilities to prepare defence and his right to counsel of his choice; and where it is impossible to do so or where the Respondent persists, the trial court has the power to order an alternative custodial arrangement or non-custodial arrangement for the Appellant.

“Denial of the Appellant’s right to adequate facilities to prepare defence as enshrined in Section 36 (6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 is a jurisdictional issues in the absence of which the trial Court cannot assume or proceed with the jurisdiction over the case unless and until such facilities are accorded to the Appellant.” [CONTINUE READING HERE]