The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has urged the Federal High Court to decline its jurisdiction to adjudicate over the alleged charge of treasonable felony filed against him by the Federal Government.
Kanu, who pleaded not guilty to the seven-count amended charges against him, noted that from the 7-Count Amended Charge, the only element requisite to constitute and found liability for incitement allegedly occurred wholly and entirely in London, United Kingdom, and not anywhere within Nigeria.
In his notice of preliminary objections filed against him, he argued that the alleged broadcasts were not shown to have occurred at sea or on the international waters abutting Nigeria, adding ‘that I know as a fact that London, United Kingdom is a sovereign state under International Municipal Law and has municipal laws punishing criminal offences.’
The preliminary objections filed by counsel to Kanu, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, further stated that ‘I also know as a fact that jurisdiction is extrinsic to adjudication. It is conferred on a Court, aliunde. It is not intrinsic.
‘That I know as a matter of fact, that as the elements necessary to constitute incitement in the alleged several broadcasts of the Defendant/Applicant occurred in London, United Kingdom, and Not in Nigeria, the Court in Nigeria has no jurisdiction to try the Defendant/Applicant on any charge founded on any such alleged incitement, even if the Defendant/Applicant enters within the geographical boundaries of Nigeria.’
The affidavit in support deposed to by Chinwe Umeche equally averred that ‘I also know as a matter of fact that the alleged offences for which the Defendant was charged, do not constitute terrorism offences in London, United Kingdom, where they were allegedly committed.
‘That I am further aware that there is an obligation on the Attorney General of the Federation, to maintain International co-operation for compliance with International Treaties on terrorism.
‘That the Defendant was abducted from Kenya and consequently extraordinarily rendered to Nigeria, without firstly subjecting him to extradition proceedings in Kenya. I know as a fact that this is a violation of all known international conventions and treaties on extradition.
‘That prosecuting the Defendant on the 7-count Amended would amount to allowing the Complainant to benefit from their illegality and wrongdoing
‘That I am aware that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, and no party should be allowed to benefit from his wrongdoing.
‘That I know as a matter of fact, that the extraordinary rendition of the Defendant robs the Honourable Court of the requisite jurisdiction of trying the Defendant on counts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Amended Charge.
English
Afrikaans
Shqip
አማርኛ
العربية
Հայերեն
Azərbaycan dili
Euskara
Беларуская мова
বাংলা
Bosanski
Български
Català
Cebuano
Chichewa
简体中文
繁體中文
Corsu
Hrvatski
Čeština
Dansk
Nederlands
Esperanto
Eesti
Filipino
Suomi
Français
Frysk
Galego
ქართული
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
ગુજરાતી
Kreyol ayisyen
Harshen Hausa
Ōlelo Hawaiʻi
עִבְרִית
हिन्दी
Hmong
Magyar
Íslenska
Igbo
Bahasa Indonesia
Gaelige
Italiano
日本語
Basa Jawa
ಕನ್ನಡ
Қазақ тілі
ភាសាខ្មែរ
한국어
كوردی
Кыргызча
ພາສາລາວ
Latin
Latviešu valoda
Lietuvių kalba
Lëtzebuergesch
Македонски јазик
Malagasy
Bahasa Melayu
മലയാളം
Maltese
Te Reo Māori
मराठी
Монгол
ဗမာစာ
नेपाली
Norsk bokmål
پښتو
فارسی
Polski
Português
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Română
Русский
Samoan
Gàidhlig
Српски језик
Sesotho
Shona
سنڌي
සිංහල
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Afsoomaali
Español
Basa Sunda
Kiswahili
Svenska
Тоҷикӣ
தமிழ்
తెలుగు
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
O‘zbekcha
Tiếng Việt
Cymraeg
isiXhosa
יידיש
Yorùbá
Zulu
