Responsive Ad Slot



Relationship Matters


Kanu: Dismiss Remaining Charges, IPOB Urges Justice Nyako

Following  Wednesday’s dismissal of six of the 11 charges against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and three others by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, the group, yesterday, urged the court to dismiss the remaining charges against its leaders.

IPOB spokespersons, Mr. Emma Nmezu, and Dr. Clifford Iroanya, said in Awka that as IPOB prepares for a full trial on count six, it was demanding that the remaining four counts be dismissed on the grounds of fraud/perjury, false claim/identity, and conflict with relevant sections of CAP-C38 and Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015.

Kanu: Dismiss remaining charges, IPOB urges Justice Nyako
Leader of IPOB, Kanu Nnamidi with his members at Federal High Court Abuja.
They said: “Counts one, two and eight must be dismissed because the charges do not conform to Section 196(1) and second schedule of the ACJA of 2015. The cited section and schedule in the ACJA require that every charge must include the date, year, and location of the commission of the offence for which the accused is being charged.

“When it comes to the specificity of time of the commission of an offence, there is no provision for the term ‘diverse dates’ either in Section 196(1) or in second schedule of ACJA 2015.

“Secondly, Section 43 of CAP C38 requires that an accused person can no longer be tried for treason and related felonies after two years from the stated date of commission of the offence.

“Without a specific date of commission of the offence, how then can the prosecution prove that two years have not elapsed as at the time of commencement of this case in Justice Binta’s court?

“In addition to dismissing these three counts, we urge Justice Binta Murtala Nyako to indict, convict and jail the prosecution for committing a crime punishable under Section 118 of CAP C38.

They warned that should Justice Binta Nyako refuse to dismiss count four, IPOB would base its argument for the continuation of the charge on Section 379(5) of CAP C38, insisting that the court must grant them the rights to subpoena everyone linked to the charge, in line with the argument of IPOB.

Share this post with your friends and also share your thoughts by adding your comments below.

No comments

Post a Comment