Mega Energy Cooperation with TIpsNews

BREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu Files Objection, Challenging Nigerian Court’s Jurisdiction To Try Him

 BREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu Files Objection, Challenging Nigerian Court’s Jurisdiction To Try Him

Kanu filed the attention of preliminary objection on the energy of Sections 1(3); 6(6); 12; 36(2): 36(8): 42; Forty five and 251(1)(q) of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

The detained leader of the Indigenous Folks of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a preliminary objection sooner than the Federal High Courtroom sitting in Abuja, not easy the court docket’s jurisdiction to are trying him.

Kanu in the attention of preliminary objection to jurisdiction of the court docket filed on Monday thru his neatly suited team led by his special counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, suggested the court docket that it has no jurisdiction to are trying him, stressing that charges filed towards him sooner than the court docket by the Nigerian authorities are unconstitutional.

Kanu filed the attention of preliminary objection on the energy of Sections 1(3); 6(6); 12; 36(2): 36(8): 42; Forty five and 251(1)(q) of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended);

Section 178 of the Customs and Excise Management Act (as repealed); Sections 218 (1) & (2) and 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015; The Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 (as repealed) and Under the inherent jurisdiction of the Courtroom.

He stated that the court docket has no jurisdiction to are trying him on counts 1,2,4,5 and 8, on the aspects and authorities to the extent that the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Amendment Act 2013 (TPAA) enabled the Nigerian authorities to receive out questions constructing in the administration of TPAA which ended in the ex parte present of proscription of IPOB and its declaration as a terrorist neighborhood and the gazetting of such present (with out giving the Applicant a probability to make representations to the authorities), is void for being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 36(2) of Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (CFRN or the Structure). 

The accurate team stated that Section 36(2) of the Structure offers, “With out prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this part, a law shall not be invalidated by reason only that it confers on any authorities or authority energy to receive out questions constructing in the administration of a law that has effects on or may possibly presumably additionally impartial relish an influence on the civil rights and tasks of any particular person if such law:

“(a) offers for a probability for the persons whose rights and tasks would possibly be affected to make representations to the administering authority sooner than that authority makes the resolution affecting that particular person; and

“(b) contains no provision making the willpower of the administering authority remaining and conclusive.”

The IPOB leader prayed the court docket for “An present of this Honorable Courtroom declining jurisdiction to entertain counts 1,2,3, 4,5 and 8 of the costs towards the defendant/applicant or to quash stated Counts on the bottom that the Law upon which stated Counts are predicated is unconstitutional.; and Law below which Applicant is being tried in these Counts has in some other case been repealed.

“An present of this Honourable Courtroom declining jurisdiction to entertain depend 3 of the costs towards the defendant/applicant or to quash stated Rely upon the bottom that the stated Depend is unconstitutional, it will not be supported by proof of proof and is in some other case an abuse of process.

“An present of this Honorable Courtroom declining jurisdiction to entertain counts 1,2,4,5 and 8 of the costs towards the defendant/applicant or to quash stated Counts on the bottom that the Applicant is misled by the absence of, or the failure to voice the map of commission of the alleged offenses and the scream dates of the publicizes alleged.

“An present of this Honorable Courtroom declining jurisdiction to entertain depend 15 of the costs or to quash stated Rely upon the bottom that the stated Depend will not be in compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act; will not be internal the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Courtroom; and is never always supported by any proof of proof; and Law below which Applicant is being tried in these Counts has in some other case been repealed.

“And for such further present(s) as this Honorable court docket may possibly presumably additionally impartial judge fit to make in the circumstance.”

The preliminary objection to the court docket’s jurisdiction used to be sequel to the ruling by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Courtroom in Abuja on Monday afternoon where she pushed aside Kanu’s novel utility looking out for the restoration of his revoked bail and his elimination from the DSS custody to a home arrest or penal complex custody.

SaharaReporters had reported that the resolve who pushed aside the utility for lacking in advantage, stated that Kanu had brought the identical utility sooner than the court docket.

No matter the Supreme Courtroom’s ruling in 2023 that Kanu failed to jump bail, Justice Nyako stated that she chanced on, as a reality, that the IPOB leader jumped the bail granted to him earlier, and that he escaped out of Nigeria.

Justice Nyako further dominated that the sureties who stood for Kanu in the earlier bail, had applied to be discharged, and had been discharged on the bottom that they couldn’t locate Kanu and failed to hang his whereabouts.

The resolve held that the single option left for Kanu used to be to plug to the Courtroom of Enchantment and may possibly presumably additionally impartial proceed to the appellate court docket to command his appropriate of attraction.

Justice Nyako disagreed with Kanu’s lead counsel, that the Supreme Courtroom held that the earlier bail granted him, ought to not had been revoked, announcing that she had perused the Supreme Courtroom judgment replica, and failed to observe the train by Kanu’s licensed skilled.

Reacting to the resolve’s ruling, Kanu blasted the Nigerian authorities for violating the provisions of Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act by looking out for to are trying him, announcing that Nigerian courts looking out for to are trying him is an act of terrorism.

Within the preliminary objection look for, the IPOB leader’s neatly suited team further asked the court docket to take look for that on the hearing of the preliminary objection, the Defendant shall, as wisely as to the affidavit, displays and the Written Tackle filed sooner than it, rely on the next grounds:

“Regarding counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 (as amended in 2013) below which the IPOB used to be proscribed and declared a terrorist neighborhood are inconsistent with the provisions of the Nigerian Structure, and are thus void to the extent of the inconsistency.

“Regarding counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, there is a subsisting judgment of a High Courtroom to the end that the govt. circulation leading to the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist neighborhood and its proscription is unconstitutional.

“Regarding counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, there are two global tribunal choices towards the arrest, detention, prosecution and trial of the Applicant which will seemingly be, by advantage of the provisions of the Nigerian Structure, binding on the Complainant and this Honorable Courtroom.

“Depend 3 of the costs towards the defendant/applicant is unconstitutional as it seeks to punish the applicant for an act that used to be not a crime when it occurred and is in some other case an abuse of process.

“The Law below which Applicant is being tried in Counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 has been repealed.

“Counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 are incurably contaminated as the Applicant is misled by the failure to voice the map or where the alleged offenses had been dedicated and the scream dates of the alleged publicizes.

“Depend 15 will not be in compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act; it will not be internal the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Courtroom; and it will not be supported by any proof of proof; and Law below which Applicant is being tried in these Counts has in some other case been repealed.”

The attention renowned that “This Honorable Courtroom has the constitutional vires and the inherent jurisdiction to interpret the Structure and the regulations of the Federation of Nigeria.” 

Read More

Digiqole Ad

Related post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *