A federal high court in Abuja has adjourned the matter of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), indefinitely.
The matter was adjourned for parties in the suit to give a report on the status of the case.
Kanu has been in detention since he was brought back from Kenya on June 19, 2021.
The IPOB leader was subsequently re-arraigned on an amended 15-count charge.
On April 8, the trial court struck out eight of the 15 counts. The court of appeal later quashed the remaining seven counts on October 13.
Delivering judgment in the appeal, a three-member panel of the appellate court led by Hanatu Sankey held that the federal government flouted the terrorism act in violation of international conventions and treaties, hence, breaching the rights of the respondent.
The court further held that having illegally and forcefully renditioned the appellant, the trial court is stripped of jurisdiction to continue to try Kanu.
However, the federal government is yet to release the IPOB leader. Instead, it filed an appeal before the supreme court to challenge the appeal court judgment.
It also filed an application seeking to stay the execution of the judgment of the appellate court.
Ruling on the application, the court of appeal granted the government’s request.
At the court session on Monday, Mike Ozekhome, counsel to Kanu, told the court that there are appeals pending before the supreme court.
“The position, therefore, is that the appeal on this matter has been entered at the supreme court,” he said.
“I humbly urge this court to adjourn this matter sine die to await the judgment of the supreme court.”
Mohammed Abubakar, prosecution counsel, agreed with Ozekhome’s position.
Ruling on the application, Binta Nyako, presiding judge, said, “I’m also in agreement that the case should be adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the appeal.”
Meanwhile, the federal government has also filed fresh charges against the IPOB leader.
When the matter was mentioned in court, Ozekhome said he had not been served with the fresh charge.
“We have not even been served this charge. We only read it on social media. It was when we came to court that we saw that it was listed,” he said
The senior advocate added that the fresh charge “constitutes an abuse of court process”, considering the appeal court decision delivered on October 13.
The judge also held that the suit should also be adjourned indefinitely until the determination of the appeals before the supreme court.
