Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed a motion seeking to halt the judgment of the federal high court in Abuja slated for November 20.
On November 7, James Omotosho, the presiding judge, fixed the date for judgment after Kanu failed to open his defence, having exhausted all opportunities given to him.
In a fresh motion filed on Tuesday, Kanu asked the court to restrain itself from delivering the judgment, arguing that the proceedings were conducted under repealed and non-existent laws, and in violation of a supreme court directive.
The IPOB leader said the court acted contrary to section 287(1) of the 1999 constitution, which mandates all courts to give effect to the decisions of the supreme court.
Advertisement
Kanu is seeking a declaration that the trial court was constitutionally bound to comply with the apex court’s finding that count 15 (now count 7) “does not exist in law”, and that its failure to do so rendered all subsequent proceedings “null and void”.
He also asked the court to declare that the judge’s failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, contrary to section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011, invalidates all actions taken under the repealed law.
Kanu further argued that, under section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the federal high court lacked jurisdiction to try him without proof that the alleged offences constituted crimes under Kenyan law or were backed by a judicial validation or extradition order from Kenya.
Advertisement
Additionally, he contended that the plea purportedly taken on March 29, 2025, under a repealed law and in violation of section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, was void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction.
He is therefore asking the court to set aside all proceedings and orders made by Omotosho in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 for want of jurisdiction and breach of constitutional supremacy.
The defendant had disengaged his legal team, opting to defend himself, while insisting that there was no case against him.
Despite persuasions from the judge for the defendant to seek legal counsel and enter a defence, Kanu insisted that there was no valid charge against him and declared his continued detention by the Department of State Services (DSS) illegal.
Advertisement
