Kanu files preliminary objection for treasonable felony charge

The detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB),Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a preliminary objection against the charge filed against him by the federal government.

Kanu is facng trial on a seven-count charge bordering on treasonable felony.

In the preliminary objection,  KANU is praying the court to decline jurisdiction to hear the charge, which he noted is defective.

The IPOB leader argued that the law upon which counts 1,2,3, 4,5 and 8 of the charges are predicated is “unconstitutional” and “has been repealed”.

Kanu further argued that some of the counts are “not supported by proof of evidence and are otherwise an abuse of process”.

Kanu stated that the prosecution  was unable to state the place of commission of the alleged offences and the specific dates of the broadcasts alleged in counts 1,2,4,5 and 8 of the charge.

“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,” the document reads.

“Regarding counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, there is a subsisting judgment 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 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“The Law under which the applicant is being tried in counts 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 has been repealed.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 offences 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.”


Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button