Nnamdi Kanu has prayed the Court of Appeal in Abuja to stop Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court from continuing with the trial proceedings.

Mr Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is currently being charged on seven counts bordering on alleged terrorism.

Justice Omotosho had, on November 7, fixed November 20 for judgment in the trial after Mr Kanu’s defence was foreclosed following his insistence that he would not enter his defence under a repealed law.

However, in a motion on notice dated November 10 but filed on November 12, Mr Kanu, who personally signed the documents, sought one relief.

He prayed the appellate court for “an order staying the proceedings of the trial court in case no. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Nnamdi Kanu, currently pending before Justice James K. Omotosho.”

Mr Kanu sought the order pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

The IPOB leader urged the Appeal Court to look into the lower court’s decision on his no-case submission, the alleged refusal of the lower court to determine its jurisdiction, and the validity of the counts under which he is being tried.

He also urged the appellate court to look into the FHC’s “foreclosure of the appellant’s right to defend the case by fielding witnesses.”

Mr Kanu, in his nine-ground argument, averred that despite the jurisdictional questions raised before the trial court, it refused to rule on them.

He said the trial court refused to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis the cross-examination questions to determine whether the evidence was discredited under cross-examination.

Mr Kanu said that though he filed a list of witnesses to be called in defence of the case and indicated that his defence would come up, “and the appellant fields witnesses immediately the court determines its jurisdiction, the trial court refused and held that the decision would only be given on the objections during judgment.”

According to him, the trial court, while refusing to rule on the objection, foreclosed the appellant’s right to defend against the heinous allegations levelled against the appellant.

“The trial court has adjourned the matter for judgment on the 20th of November, 2025.

“If the application is not granted, the appellant may be unlawfully convicted without being afforded the opportunity of knowing the validity of the counts, the jurisdiction of the trial court, and offering defence on the merits.

“Further proceedings on the matter will stultify the appellant’s right of appeal and any appellate decision fait accompli,” he said.

Mr Kanu said neither the trial court nor he would be prejudiced “if the application is granted, the case having been prolonged since the year 2015 only to commence before the instant court sometime in this year 2025.”

He said it would be in the interest of justice to grant the application and allow the matter to be taken on the merits.

Mr Kanu, who disengaged his lawyers, had opted to represent himself in the charge before Justice Omotosho. He had questioned the court’s jurisdiction to try him based on the charge, which he claimed was invalid on the grounds that it was based on repealed laws.

The IPOB leader submitted that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, and the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45 LFN 2004, on which the charge was hinged, had been repealed.

He further argued that the court’s failure to take judicial notice that the laws had been repealed rendered the proceedings so far conducted in the case a nullity.

Mr Kanu claimed that his trial was a conspiracy and had been predetermined, accusing the British authorities of wanting him to be convicted and jailed.

He alleged that he learnt of the British authorities’ intention about his fate about one and a half years ago.

However, Justice Omotosho said he was unaware of Mr Kanu’s claim.

The judge, who said that he had no relationship with the British authorities, also clarified that he was not the judge during the period Mr Kanu was referred to.

The IPOB leader insisted that he would only enter the witness box to give his testimony after he had been told under which law he was being tried.

Justice Omotosho, in his ruling, held that Mr Kanu, having exhausted the six days allocated to him by the court to conduct his defence, had waived his right to do so.

The judge said he would have extended the days allocated to Mr Kanu to conduct his defence if he had opted to open it.

He said Mr Kanu, having failed to utilise the opportunity given to him to conduct his defence, could not claim to have been denied the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing.

“This court has given opportunity to the defendant under Section 36 as required by the constitution, and I will not allow this to continue.

“It is based on this, without hesitation, that I say that the defendant has waived his right,” Justice Omotosho said and adjourned the matter until November 20 for judgment.

(NAN)