Aloy Ejimakor, the lead counsel of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has said the decision of the Abuja Federal High Court that it has jurisdiction to entertain some of the charges against the Biafra agitator is illegal and unconstitutional.
Ejimakor faulted the court’s decision to entertain charges 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 against Kanu.
His stance was contained in a notice of preliminary objection to jurisdiction.
The IPOB leader is currently facing terrorism charges levelled against him by the Nigerian Government.
However, a statement signed by Ejimakor reads: “An order of this Honorable Court declining jurisdiction to entertain counts 1,2,3, 4,5 and 8 of the charges against the defendant/applicant or to quash said counts on the ground that the law upon which said counts are predicated is unconstitutional.; and law under which applicant is being tried in these counts has otherwise been repealed.
“An order of this Honourable Court declining jurisdiction to entertain Count 3 of the charges against the defendant/applicant or to quash said count on the ground that the said count is unconstitutional, it is not supported by proof of evidence and is otherwise an abuse of process.
“An order of this Honourable Court declining jurisdiction to entertain counts 1,2,4,5 and 8 of the charges against the
defendant/applicant or to quash said counts on the ground that the applicant is misled by the absence of, or the failure to state the place of commission of the alleged offences and the specific dates of the broadcasts alleged.
“An order of this Honourable Court declining jurisdiction to entertain Count 15 of the charges or to quash said count on the ground that the said count is not in compliance with the Administration of
Criminal Justice Act; is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court; and is not supported by any proof of evidence and law under which applicant is being tried in these counts has otherwise been repealed.
“And for such further order(s) as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.
“And further take notice that at the hearing of this Preliminary Objection, the defendant shall -in addition to the affidavit, exhibits and the written address filed hereof -rely on the following grounds:
“Regarding counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 (as amended in 2013) under which the IPOB was proscribed and declared a terrorist group are inconsistent with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution and are thus void to the extent of the inconsistency.
“Regarding counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, there is a subsisting judgement of a High Court to the effect that the executive action leading to the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist group and its proscription is unconstitutional.
“Regarding counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, there are two international tribunal decisions against the arrest, detention, prosecution and trial of the applicant which are, by virtue of the the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, binding on the complainant and this Honourable Court.
“Count 3 of the charges against the defendant/applicant is unconstitutional as it seeks to punish the applicant for an act that was not a crime when it occurred and is otherwise an abuse of process.
“The law under 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 defective as the applicant is misled by the failure to state the place or where the alleged offenses were committed and the specific dates of the alleged broadcasts.
“Count 15 is not in compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice
Act; it is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court; and it is not supported by any proof of evidence; and law under which applicant is being tried in these Counts has otherwise been repealed.
“This Honorable Court has the constitutional vires and the inherent jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the Federation of Nigeria.”
Comments
Post a Comment
https://saviournicodemus.blogspot.com