Ad

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

Appeal Court dismisses Kanu, others appeal

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, dismissed the appeal that was lodged before it by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.


Kanu and two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu, had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they termed “strange procedure” adopted in their trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The trio ‎who are answering to a six-count treason charge the federal government preferred against them, in their consolidated appeal, alleged bias against trial Justice John Tsoho who not only ‎declined to grant them bail, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of eight witnesses billed to testify in the ‎matter.

Justice Tsoho had equally rejected application praying him to discharge and acquit the three defendants in line with ‎section 351(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

Meantime, in a unanimous judgment on Wednesday, a three-man panel of Justices of the appellate court led by Justice Abdul Aboki, dismissed th defendants’ appeal as “grossly lacking in merit”.

The appellate court further declined to order the release of the defendants on bail on the premise that allegations against them are “grievous and serious”.

Justice Aboki who read the lead judgment, said it was not in doubt the 1st defendant, Kanu, has dual citizenship.

He said Kanu’s possession of both Nigerian and British passports increased the likelihood that he could jump bail if released from detention.

On the procedure adopted by the trial court, the appeal court panel maintained that Justice Tsoho had the discretion to decide how the proceeding should be conducted.

“The lower court has the power to exercise its discretion on the matter and the exercise of such discretion by the trial judge did not amount to denial of fair hearing to the defendants.

“The issues are resolved against the appellants. Ruling of the trial court is hereby upheld”, the appellate court held.

No comments:

Post a Comment