The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the hapless leader of IPOB, has been given a new date by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The trial date for Kanu, who is accused of supporting terrorism, has now been changed to November 14. At Kanu’s request, the trial date was changed.
However, as he was the one who demanded a shift in the trial, the separatist group’s head will continue to be in the Department of State Service’s (DSS) custody until that time.
After an appeal was filed against the high court judgment sustaining Kanu’s seven count accusations, Justice Binta Nyako postponed the trial.
Eight of the Federal Government’s fifteen count accusations against Kanu were rejected by Justice Nyako, who then ordered his trial on the remaining seven counts.
However, during Tuesday’s hearings, Kanu’s attorney, Mike Ozekhome SAN, informed the court that his client had appealed the seven counts’ competence to the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Kanu asked the appellate court to throw out the seven counts that were still pending against him in the appeal with the filing number CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, through Ozekhome SAN.
He based his appeal on the claim that no Nigerian court had the authority to try him because the alleged offenses in the accusations were committed elsewhere.
Ozekhome pleaded with the court to halt the prosecution’s case until the Court of Appeal resolved the grounds raised.
He clarified that the appeal had been properly filed and that the appellate court had received the record of the proceedings, adding that in light of the most recent development, the Federal High Court was unable to continue the trial.
However, Mr. David Kaswe, the federal government’s attorney, made valiant attempts to urge the court to disregard Ozekhome’s argument on the grounds that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 forbade the country from having criminal trials postponed.
Justice Nyako issued a swift conclusion upholding Ozekhome’s arguments and deferring the continuation of the trial until November 14 in order to await the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
