HOME

FOREIGN

ALBUM

NAIJA

SITEMAP
Politics

[Politics]: Nnamdi Kanu Appeals Court Judgement Retaining Seven Of 15 Charges Against Him, Alleges Miscarriage Of Justice

Nnamdi Kanu Appeals Court Judgement Retaining Seven Of 15 Charges Against Him, Alleges Miscarriage Of Justice

Nnamdi Kanu Appeals Court Judgement Retaining Seven Of 15 Charges Against Him, Alleges Miscarriage Of Justice

Nnamdi Kanu Appeals Court Judgement Retaining Seven Of 15 Charges Against Him, Alleges Miscarriage Of Justice

Nnamdi Kanu, the head of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has pursued a new decision of the Federal High Court which struck out eight out of the 15-count charge recorded against him.

Kanu had been being investigated on a revised 15-count charge verging on double crossing lawful offense.

On April 8, Binta Nyako, the adjudicator, administering on Kanu’s application on Friday, struck out counts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

This implies the IPOB pioneer is to stand preliminary on counts 1,2,3,4,5,8 and 15.

However, in the allure gave on Friday and endorsed by his lead counsel, Mike Ozekhome, as acquired by SaharaReporters, Kanu asked the court of allure in Abuja to excuse the excess charges against him and release him.

The nonconformist chief blamed Nyako’s decision looking into it, contending that the appointed authority blundered in a few regions which add up to a “unnatural birth cycle of equity”.

It peruses, “Ground one: mistake in regulation. The learned preliminary adjudicator blundered in regulation when he neglected to consider, make a finding of realities and likewise articulate on issue one raised for the preliminary Court’s assurance, connecting with the uncommon version of the Appellant, and in this manner occasioned an unsuccessful labor of equity.

“Ground two: mistake in regulation. The learned preliminary Judge failed in Law, when that’s what he held “the litigant is being charged under Section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act, which has been recreated over, any offense affirmed to have been committed “inside” or “outside” Nigeria can be brought under the Act”, subsequently occasioning a premature delivery of equity.”

“Ground three: blunder in regulation. The learned preliminary Judge blundered in regulation, when that’s what he held albeit the situation with the Indigenous People of Biafra as a prohibited association is a topic under the steady gaze of the Court of Appeal, yet as long as the allure has not set in stone, the request for Court forbidding is still in force until put away, and along these lines occasioning a premature delivery of equity.

“Ground four: blunder in regulation. The learned preliminary Judge blundered in regulation when in the activity of the powers presented on him by Section 216(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, suo motu altered count 15 of the charge, which is established on a claim of importation of a radio transmitter in Ubuluisiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, and continued to accept ward over offenses purportedly perpetrated external its regional purview, and in this manner occasioned an unnatural birth cycle of equity.

“Ground five: blunder in regulation. The learned preliminary Judge blundered in regulation when he held that preliminaries under the watchful eye of the Federal High Court are synopsis, and thusly decided that counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 show some similarity to claim of an offense on which the Court can continue to preliminary, and in this manner occasioned an unsuccessful labor of equity.”

About the author

Famous9ja

Leave a Comment