By peace ufugba
The terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was again delayed on Friday at the Federal High Court in Abuja after he claimed his case file had not been delivered to him at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility where he is being held.
Lead prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), informed the court that the matter was slated for Kanu to open his defence. However, when called upon, Kanu told the court that he could not proceed due to the unavailability of his case file, which his former legal team failed to hand over following their dismissal.
Kanu requested an adjournment until Monday, October 27, to allow access to the file and prepare adequately. He also informed the court of his intention to call witnesses from the United Kingdom, United States, Kenya, and Ethiopia, and sought permission to meet with them over the weekend.
Awomolo expressed surprise at the development, describing Kanu’s claim as “strange,” given that he had previously spent hours in court with his former lawyers. He reminded the court that Kanu had been allotted six days to present his defence and urged strict adherence to the schedule.
Justice James Omotosho, although skeptical of the claim that former AGF Kanu Agabi (SAN) withheld the case file, granted the adjournment. He warned against further delays, noting that several other cases had suffered due to the prolonged trial.
The case was adjourned till Monday, October 27, for Kanu to open his defence.
Kanu Files Fresh Objection, Seeks Dismissal of Charges
Meanwhile, in a fresh notice of preliminary objection filed before the court, Nnamdi Kanu is seeking several declaratory and injunctive reliefs, challenging the legality of his ongoing trial and the charges brought against him.
Among the reliefs sought, Kanu is asking the court for:
– A declaration that his continued prosecution under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2013, and on the basis of a proscription order obtained ex parte and without fair hearing, violates Sections 1(3), 36(1)-(12), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights—thereby rendering the prosecution null and void.
– A declaration that the Federal High Court’s ex parte proscription of IPOB, obtained without notice or hearing, is unconstitutional and unlawful—especially while Justice Binta Nyako’s ruling (which held that IPOB is not an unlawful society) remains in force—and therefore cannot form the basis for criminal liability.
An order striking out or permanently staying Counts 1 to 8 (except Count 15) of the amended charge dated January 14, 2022, on the grounds of double jeopardy, arguing that they share the same factual basis as Counts 6 to 14, which were previously struck out by the court on April 8, 2022.
– A declaration that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya, without formal extradition proceedings or adherence to due process, violated Section 36(1) & (9) of the Constitution, the Extradition Act (Cap E25 LFN 2004), and Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter—thereby stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
– An order nullifying all proceedings conducted in breach of his rights to fair hearing, including lack of access to adequate facilities for his defence, seizure of legal documents, eavesdropping on confidential conversations with counsel, and denial of unmonitored legal consultations.
- The court is expected to consider these applications alongside the resumed defence on Monday.
