Nnamdi Kanu's fresh appeal comes barely three months after the Supreme Court, in December 2023, dismissed his earlier appeal with respect to the trial that started in 2015.
The detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has appealed against a recent decision of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissing his objection to his trial.
This comes barely three months after the Supreme Court, in December 2023, dismissed his earlier appeal aimed at quashing the trial that started in 2015.
The Supreme Court had in its December 2023 judgement, against Mr Kanu's contention, affirmed the validity of the charges instituted against him by the Nigerian government.
The Supreme Court ordered him to return to the Federal High Court to proceed with his trial which hovers around the treasonable felony charges, which stemmed from his separatist campaigns for the secession of Biafra Republic from Nigeria.
Mr Kanu raised a fresh objection to the case shortly after the Federal High Court reopened it for the trial to continue in line with the Supreme CKanu's order.
The trial judge, Binta Byako, had dismissed the objection, triggering another round of appeals that may end up at the Supreme Court.
Mr Kanu, in his fresh notice of appeal filed on 28 March through his team of lawyers led by Aloy Ejimakor, prayed the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to grant his appeal and set aside the trial court's decision.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the IPOB leader had filed the dismissed preliminary objection to seek an order for some conditions to be met by the federal government before his trial at the Federal High Court could proceed.
He had alleged that the State Security Service (SSS) personnel often seized documents of his lawyers during visitation, stopped his lawyers from taking notes, and eavesdropped on his consultation with his lawyers on matters pertaining to his defence, among others.
He alleged that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to defend himself in accordance with Section 36(6)(b) of the Nigerian constitution.
He prayed that the court should make an order to address his concerns before the trial could commence.
But the trial judge, Binta Nyako, had, in a ruling on 19 March, declined to grant the objection of the detained IPOB leader.
She also dismissed a fresh bail application Mr Kanu filed after the Supreme Court's judgement.
The judge ordered an accelerated hearing of the case.
Grounds of appeal
He argued in his notice of appeal that the trial court erred in law when the court assumed jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the criminal trial against him when he was glaringly denied the constitutional right to a fair trial.
He alleged that he was denied adequate facilities to prepare for the defence of the criminal allegations against him and his right to counsel of his own choice, thereby occasioning a grave miscarriage of justice.
"The denial of the appellant (Kanu) the opportunity to interact and brief his counsel on what line of defences the appellant tends to agitate in the trial court and rely on was adequately brought to the attention of the trial court by motion.
"The trial court failed and neglected to make necessary orders that would protect the appellant's aforesaid rights but rather held that the court cannot dictate how the respondent carries out its work," he said.
He said the trial court had the power to order the respondent to cease and desist from interfering with his constitutional right.
Besides, Mr Kanu said the lower court had the power to order an alternative custodial arrangement or non-custodial arrangement for him, where it is impossible for the respondent to comply or where the respondent persists in the act.
He stated, "Denial of the appellant's right to adequate facilities to prepare defence as enshrined in Section 36 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution is a jurisdictional issues in the absence of which the trial court cannot assume or proceed with the jurisdiction over the case unless and until such facilities are accorded to the appellant."
Mr Kanu argued that though he had prayed the court to stop the DSS alleged unconstitutional acts of forcibly seizing and photocopying confidential legal documents brought to him by his lawyers meant for his defence of the charges against him, the court declined to grant the plea.
He said the trial judge erred in law when the court ordered for an accelerated hearing despite the consistent refusal of the respondent to afford him the right to adequate facility to prepare for his defence of the charges levelled against him and his right to counsel.
According to him, the order for accelerated hearing of the case in the face of the constitutional breaches of fair hearing/trial rights of the appellant is a credence to the respondent to proceed on the unconstitutional denial of the appellant his right to adequate facilities to prepare for his defence and his right to counsel of his choice.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"In the present case, where Sections 36 (6) (b) and (c) of the Constitution are violated by the respondent against the appellant, the trial court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and or proceed with the hearing of the case," he added.
Prayers
The IPOB leader, therefore, prayed the appellate court to allow the appeal, vacate the ruling of the lower court for the trial court to decline jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the case unless and until he is granted his right to a fair hearing under Section 36(6)(6)(b) and (c) of the constitution.
Alternatively, he urged the Appeal Court for the trial court to order an alternative custodial or non-custodial arrangement free of interference with his said constitutional right to a fair hearing.
He equally sought an order setting aside the order for accelerated hearing of the case in the circumstances of the case where he is not allowed facilities to prepare for the defence of the charges against him and denied his right to counsel. .
Mr Kanu sought a stay of proceedings pending when the respondent affords him the constitutional safeguards of being afforded adequate facilities to prepare for his defence and his unfettered right to counsel.
(NAN)
