The leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has confronted the practice direction of the Federal High Court which ordered that his trial should be done in secret.

Specifically, Nnamdi Kanu who had approached the court through an Originating Summons wants the court to hold that the provisions of Order III of the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, were already the subject of Section 36 (4)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, and consequently, “they are otiose, inoperative and outrightly ultra vires.”

In the Originating Summons filed by his counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, the IPOB leader is asking the court to declare it “invalid, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.”

Nnamdi Kanu also wants the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies, and all other officers and agents of the Federal High Court of Nigeria from applying and enforcing the provisions of the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022.

Other reliefs sought are, “A declaration that the failure of the 1st defendant to first seek and obtain the approval of the Federal Executive Council (or the National Council of Ministers) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria prior to enacting the Federal High Court Practice Directions (on Trials of Terrorism Cases), 2022, as required by Section 44 of the Federal High Court Act renders the Federal High Court Practice Direction (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, ultra vires, null and void.

“A declaration that Order III Rules 3(b) and (d) of the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trials of Terrorism Cases) 2022, which respectively empower a Federal High Court trying terrorism cases “to receive evidence by video link, and to receive a written deposition of an expert witness” are inconsistent with Items 23 and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List as well as Paragraph 2(b) of Part III of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution which confers on the National Assembly the exclusive power to make rules of evidence, both substantive and adjectival and are therefore ultra vires, null and void to the extent of the inconsistency

“A declaration that Order IV Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Practice Direction (on Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, which provides that a person who contravenes an order or direction made under these Directions shall be deemed to have committed an offence contrary to Section 34(5) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, (as amended) is otiose and inoperative because the National Assembly had already covered the field vide Section 34(5) of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011, as amended.

“A declaration that the rule-making powers of the 1st Defendant under Section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, is limited to the premises of the Federal High Court and do not extend to outside its perimeters, which are under the exclusive responsibility of law enforcement agencies such as the Police, DSS, etc; and

“An order of this Honourable court declaring the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, unconstitutional ultra vires, invalid, null, void, and of no effect.”

Listed as defendants in the suit are the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and its Chief Registrar.

It would be recalled that Justice John Tsoho had released a new practice direction for the trial of terrorism cases before the court.

All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from NEWSHUBNAIJA.

Contact: newshubnaija76@gmail.com or 09154181127