The prosecution also alleged that on diverse dates between March and April 2015 Mr Kanu was illegally imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulisluzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, a radio transmitter known as Tram 50L concealed in a container of used household items which he declared as used household items.
The alleged offence was said to be contrary to section 47(2)(a) of Criminal Code Act CapC45 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
But in the appeal signed by lead counsel Mike Ozekhome SAN, Kanu prayed the Court of Appeal in Abuja to dismiss the remaining charges against him and discharge him.
Grounds on Appeal:
1. “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he failed to consider, make finding of facts and accordingly pronounce on issue one raised for the trial Court’s determination, relating to the extraordinary rendition of the Appellant, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
2. The learned trial Judge erred in Law, when he held that “the defendant is being charged under Section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act, which has been reproduced above, any offence alleged to have been committed “within” or “outside” Nigeria can be brought under the Act”, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice”.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in law, when he held that although the status of the Indigenous People of Biafra as a proscribed organization is a subject matter before the Court of Appeal, but as long as the appeal has not been determined, the order of Court proscribing is still in force until set aside, and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
4. The learned trial Judge erred in law when in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 216(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, suo motu amended count 15 of the charge, which is founded on an allegation of importation of a radio transmitter in Ubulu -Isiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, and proceeded to assume jurisdiction over offences allegedly committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that trials before the Federal High Court are summary, and consequently ruled that counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 show some semblance of allegation of an offence on which the Court can proceed to trial, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The sought reliefs read;
1. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE RULING/FINAL DECISION OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT, RETAINING COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 AND 15 OF THE AMENDED CHARGE.
2. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT UPON GRANTING RELIEF A ABOVE, DISMISSING THE REMAINING COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 AND 15 AND, ACCORDINGLY DISCHARGING THE APPELLANT ON THOSE COUNTS.
3. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT TERMINATING THE ENTIRE CHARGE AND DISCHARGING THE APPELLANT.
4. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO MAKE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL.