The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has gone to the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to challenge the ruling of the Abuja Federal High Court refusing his application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain his trial.

Kanu filed the appeal on June 19 through his lead counsel, Barr Aloy Ejimakor, challenging Justice Binta Nyako-led Federal High Court’s decision to entertain his trial.

Ejimakor argued that Justice Nyako erred in law when she ruled that, “The main claim in this application deals with the counts of charge the defendant is facing. These counts of charge that this court had retained after a considered ruling on the counts of charge dismissing eight of the original counts. The main issue is that if the defendant has a problem with the counts of charge retained, the option open is appeal.”

Ejimakor further stated that the high court erred in law when it considered only one out of the seven ‘jurisdictional’ grounds raised in the preliminary objection and the lone ground bordering on the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 (TPAA 2013) occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice against the appellant.

He said, “The learned trial judge erred in law and thus occasioned grave miscarriage of justice against the appellant when the trial court refused the preliminary objection even after it held that ‘all the arguments of counsel may be correct but it will require the court to take evidence before it can pronounce on the arguments’.”

He stated that the trial court was right to hold that the argument of the counsel to the appellant was well-founded or might be correct, adding that the Honorable trial court erred “and/or otherwise misdirected itself on the law when it held at the same time that the said arguments will require evidence before the trial court can make its pronouncement”.

He continued, “The learned trial court erred in law when the court ignored the glaring fact that the respondent failed woefully to contradict or deny the affidavit evidence of the appellant and even admitted to some of the depositions of the appellant.

“The learned trial judge erred in law and occasioned grave miscarriage of justice against the appellant when the trial court held that the Notice of Preliminary Objection was an abuse of judicial process and consequently struck it out.”

Kanu therefore is seeking, among others, the order of the appeal court allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision/ruling of the high court, as well as the order of the court that the said counts “are invalid and incompetent by virtue of any or all of the grounds raised in the preliminary objection.”

Others are: “An order of this Honorable Court discharging and acquitting the appellant of all the charges; a consequential order of this Honorable Court unconditionally releasing the appellant from detention.”