Court Fixes Nov. 10 to Hear Nnamdi Kanu’s Application, Challenging Competence of FG’s Charge
Justice Binta Nyako, on Thursday, fixed the date after counsel to Kanu, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, informed that he had a notice of preliminary objection challenging the fresh seven-count charge filed against his client.
Earlier, counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Abubakar, told the court that an amended seven counts had already been filed and he prayed the court for the charges to be read to Kanu to take his plea.
Following the complaint by the legal team, the judge ordered that three people, of Kanu’s choice, be allowed to visit him every Thursday at the DSS facility.
Although journalists were not allowed into the courtroom by the operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS), Ejiofor briefed the media shortly after the proceedings.
He said a notice of preliminary objection filed to challenge the amended charge would be taken by the court on Nov. 10.
The applicaion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/3832015 dated Oct. 18 and filed Oct. 20 by Ejiofor, sought for two orders of the court.
“AN ORDER striking out/quashing and or dismissing the seven-count amended charge, specifically, counts 1 to 7 preferred against the defendant/applicant (Kanu) in the amended charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, for the reason that the counts, as constituted, are incompetent and thus, deprives the Honourable Court of jurisdiction to entertain the same.
“AN ORDER of the Honourable Court discharging and acquitting the defendant/applicant of all the counts in the seven-count amended charge preferred against the defendant/applicant, upon the same being struck out/quashed and/or dismissed,” it reads.
The application was filed on 31 grounds, among which were “that no allegation was made in any of the counts of the amended charge that the alleged sundry acts of the defendant/Aapplicant were physically carried out by him, within the geographical space or territorial boundaries of Nigeria; that the only element requisite to constitute and found liability for incitement is the actual words allegedly uttered by the defendant/applicant.”
Reports say there was pandemonium earlier at the main entrance of the building as lawyers clashed with the DSS personnel over the refusal to allow them access into the court premises.
Litigants and other visitors who were at the court for other businesses were also barred from coming into the court premises.