Those who were expecting the release of Nnamdi Kanu, the embattled
leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), may have to wait
much longer.
After two botched trials, the Federal Government on Tuesday
re-arraigned the IPOB leader and three others on an 11-count charge of
treasonable felony, illegal possession of firearms and terrorism.
Kanu and his co-defendants were re-arraigned before Justice Binta
Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja after they were earlier docked
before Justice John Tsoho of the same court in the nation’s capital.
In the amended charge dated November 7, 2016 and filed by the Director
of Public Prosecution (DPP) of the Federation, Mohammed Umar, the
Federal Government added five more charges to the earlier six the
defendants were arraigned.
The government included a new defendant, one David Nwawusi, in the
case. The two others, Onwudiwe Chidiebere and Benjamin Madubugwu, had
been charged along with Kanu in the first six-count charge.
When the case was called for hearing yesterday, all the defendants
pleaded not guilty to the charges when these charges were read to them.
Kanu, alongside Chidiebere and Madubugwu, were first arraigned before
Justice Shuaibu Usman of a Magistrate Court in Wuse Zone 2, Abuja, who
dismissed the case following a motion by the prosecutor, the
Department of State Services (DSS) that the court lacked jurisdiction
to entertain the suit.
At the Federal High Court, Abuja, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, who was
first assigned the case, withdrew from the matter following allegations
by the defendants that they would not get fair hearing from the court
even before they took their not guilty plea.
Another judge, Justice John Tsoho, toed a similar line after he was
petitioned at the National Judicial Council (NJC) on allegations of
bias.
Consequently, the case file was returned to the Chief Judge of the
Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, before it was re-assigned to
Justice Nyako.
Of the fresh charges, terrorism was added while the scope of the previous charges was expanded.
Count one of the charge read: “That you Nnamdi Kanu, ‘M’, Onwudiwe
Chidiebere ‘M’, Benjamin Madubugwu ‘M’, David Nwawusi ‘M’ and others
now at large, on diverse dates in 2014 and 2015 in Nigeria and London,
United Kingdom, did conspire amongst yourselves to broadcast on Radio
Biafra monitored in Enugu and other areas within the jurisdiction of
this Honourable Court, preparations being made by you and others at
large, or states in the South East and South-South zones and other
communities in Kogi and Benue States to secede from the Federal Republic
of Nigeria with a view to constituting same into a Republic of Biafra
and you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 516 of the
Criminal Code Act, CAP.C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2000.”
Justice Nyako adjourned hearing on the bail application till November 17, 2016.
ECOWAS court adjourns ruling till Feb 9
Also, yesterday, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS) adjourned ruling on Kanu’s fundamental
human rights case against the Federal Government, till February 9, 2017
for final hearing.
The three-man panel of Justice Micha Wilkins, Justice Yaya Boiro and Justice Akiaine Sallem headed the case.
Kanu was absent in court, but his lawyer, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, was present when the adjournment was made.
Joined in the suit were the Attorney-General of the Federation and the
Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Kanu asked the regional court for a compensation of $800 million for
alleged violation of his human rights and an order directing his
unconditional release and his personal effects.
Kanu has been in detention since October 14, 2015.
He prayed the court to declare that his continued detention was a
violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter of
1970.
At yesterday’s session, Ejiofor claimed that he was ambushed with the
application and prayed the court to discountenance it, insisting that it
was a delay tactic to stop the court from hearing the case.
His arguments were based on Article 35 of the ECOWAS Court which
frowned at such application. He further stated that the plaintiff’s
rights had been grossly violated by the government and urged the court
to dismiss the new application against the defendant, because it came
after the adjourned date.
Responding to the Ejiofor’s argument, the government told the court
that two municipal courts (the High Court and the Appeal Court) refused
to grant the plaintiff bail, and as such should not be accorded it. The
government said that while waiting for the judgment of the Appeal
Court, the plaintiff “ran” to the ECOWAS Court, where he refused to
disclose the reasons for the Nigerian court’s refusal to grant him
bail
Thereafter, Justice Micha adjourned the case till February 9, 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment