Connect with us

News

BREAKING: Latest News On Nnamdi Kanu’s Suit

Published

on

BREAKING: Latest News On Nnamdi Kanu's Suit

Abuja Federal High Court, on Monday, adjourned a N50 billion suit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, against the Federal Government.

Kanu had sued the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/462/2022.

Kanu sued the defendants over allegations bordering on violation of his rights. He alleged that he was kidnapped from Kenya and brought back to Nigeria to stand trial.

READ ALSO: Breaking: Nnamdi Kanu May Be Released Soon

Advertisement

He wants the court to determine “whether the way and manner in which the plaintiff was abducted in Kenya and extraordinarily renditioned to Nigeria is consistent with extant laws.”

Particularly, he cited “the provisions of Article 12 (4) of the African Charter on human and peoples rights (ratification and enforcement) Act Cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and Article/Part 5 (a) of the African Charter’s principles and guidelines on human and peoples’ rights while countering terrorism in Africa.”

Kanu also wants the court to determine “whether by the operation of Section 15 of the Extradition Act Cap E25, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the plaintiff can be competently/legally tried for offences stated in counts 1 to 14 of the 15-count amended charge in charge number FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”

Advertisement

READ ALSO: Tragic! Diploma Mass Comm Student Commits Suicide Over Heartbreak

But in a notice of preliminary objection dated Jun 6, 2022, but filed June 27, 2022, the FRN and AGF prayed the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as “an abuse of court process.”

Giving one ground of argument, the defendants argued that Kanu had filed an earlier suit with similar facts before a Federal High Court, Umuahia Division.

Advertisement

They further argued that the two defendants were parties in the suit.

According to the defendants, this renders this suit as an abuse of court process that deprived the court of the jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit

Advertisement