Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed his brief argument against the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court (FHC) decision, which dismissed his objection to his trial continuation.

Mr Kanu, in the brief of argument dated May 28 but filed May 29 by his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, prayed the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal to set aside the trial court’s decision.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria is the sole respondent in the appellant’s brief argument.

The IPOB leader had filed a preliminary objection seeking an order for some conditions to be met by the federal government before his trial at FHC could proceed.

He had alleged that the State Security Service (SSS) personnel often seized his lawyers’ documents during visitation, stopped them from taking notes, and eavesdropped on his consultation with them on matters pertaining to his defence, among others.

Mr Kanu alleged that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to defend himself in accordance with section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

However, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court declined to grant the detained IPOB leader’s objection in a ruling on March 19.

The judge, who ordered an accelerated hearing of the trial, also dismissed his bail application.

Besides, the judge also, on May 20, dismissed Mr Kanu’s plea for an order to either set aside the 2017 revocation of his bail, transfer him to Kuje Correctional Centre or place him under house arrest.

Meanwhile, in his brief of argument made available on May 30, Mr Kanu sought four reliefs.

The IPOB leader prayed the appellate court to allow the appeal, vacate the ruling of the lower court and 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 an accelerated hearing of the case in the circumstances of the case, where he was not allowed facilities to prepare for the defence of the charges against him and was denied his right to counsel.

Mr Kanu sought a stay of proceedings pending when the respondent afforded him the constitutional safeguards of adequate facilities to prepare for his defence and his unfettered right to counsel.

The appellant had earlier filed his notice of appeal on March 28.

(NAN)