The Biafra Nation Agitator, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to stop the Federal High Court from delivering judgment in the terrorism charges brought against him by the federal government.
Judgment in the terrorism charges filed since 2015 has been scheduled for delivery on November 20 by Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
However, Kanu in a fresh motion on notice he has just filed, is praying the Court of Appeal to stop the high court from further proceeding in the charges against him.
His new motion was predicated on the ground that he had filed a notice of appeal against the September 26 ruling of Justice Omotosho which dismissed his no case submission and ordered him to defend the terrorism allegations against him.
Kanu, the self acclaimed leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is contending that the Federal High Court was wrong in dismissing his no case submission without going through the jurisdictional and validity of the charges he raised.
Among others, he argued that the lower court was wrong in upholding the charges because the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed and therefore no vaiid charges against him.
He also held that the Constitutional issue of jurisdiction was not addressed by the judge in the considered ruling on no case submission.
The ground of the motion was that Justice Omotosho did not evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the cross examination to determine whether the adduced evidence had been discredited.
Kanu said that if his request to stop the judgment delivery was not granted by the Court of Appeal, he may be unlawfully convicted and sentenced to jail.
Besides, he feared that if the November 20 judgment is delivered, his appeal against the no case submission would become a mere academic and a fait accompli would therefore be foisted on the Court of Appeal.
The Biafra nation agitator submitted that neither himself nor the Federal High Court would be prejudiced if the application is granted.
He specifically averred that counts 1 to 6 in the charges against him were predicated on repealed statute, hence, no validity charges against him.
Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for hearing of the motion on notice by the Court of Appeal.
Discussion0