A notice of appeal filed by
Ejimakor with charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, reads: “TAKE NOTICE that the
Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja
Division coram: B.F.M Nyako, J. delivered on the 19th March, 2024 doth hereby
appeal to the Court of Appeal Abuja upon the grounds set out in Paragraph 3
below and will at the hearing of the appeal seek reliefs as set out in
Paragraph 4 hereof from the Court of Appeal.
“The Learned trial Court erred in
law when the Court assumed jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the
criminal trial against the Appellant when the Appellant is glaringly denied the
constitutional right to fair trial with particular reference to denial of
adequate facilities to prepare for the defence of the criminal allegations
against the Appellant and his right to counsel of his own choice, thereby
occasioning a grave miscarriage of justice.
“Fair hearing/trial bears the
constitutional safeguards of ensuring that the Appellant is accorded the
adequate facilities to prepare for the defence of the criminal allegations
levelled against the Appellant.
“The denial of the Appellant the
opportunity to interact and brief his counsel on what line of defences the
Appellant tends to agitate in the trial court and rely on was adequately
brought to the attention of the trial Court by Motion.
“The trial Court failed and
neglected to make necessary orders that would protect the Appellant’s aforesaid
rights but rather held that the Court cannot dictate how the Respondent carries
out its work.
“The trial Court has the powers
to order the Respondent (being the detaining authority) to cease and desist
from interfering with Appellant’s constitutional/fair hearing right to adequate
facilities to prepare defence and his right to counsel of his choice; and where
it is impossible to do so or where the Respondent persists, the trial court has
the power to order an alternative custodial arrangement or non-custodial
arrangement for the Appellant.
“Denial of the Appellant’s right
to adequate facilities to prepare defence as enshrined in Section 36 (6) (b) of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 is a jurisdictional
issues in the absence of which the trial Court cannot assume or proceed with
the jurisdiction over the case unless and until such facilities are accorded to
the Appellant.”
The legal team also accused the
trial judge of erring when she held that “I cannot make orders directing a
security agency on how to do their work.
“I can only direct that whatever
is within the law must be allowed to the Defendant. Counsel cannot direct the
court or give condition to the court on how to conduct its business.
“The Defendant is entitled to a
counsel of his choice and should be given the facility to conduct an interview
with his counsel within the confines of the law.”
Kanu by a notice of preliminary
objection prayed the court to find and hold that trial in the case cannot
proceed except, the “respondent stopped the unconstitutional acts of forcibly
seizing and photocopying confidential legal documents brought to the Appellant
by the Appellant’s lawyers meant for the Appellant’s defence of the charges
against the appellant.
“Stopped eavesdropping on the
Appellant’s confidential consultation/conversations with the Appellant’s
counsel which discussion is aimed at preparing the Appellant for his defence.
“The Respondent denied counsel to
the Appellant the right to take notes; denied them the rights to transmit
messages and information to the Appellant; secretly took pictures of counsel
and the Appellant’s interviews and recorded briefings between the Appellant’s
lawyers and the Appellant, scanned documents meant for the Appellant from the
Appellant’s team of lawyers and even refused to allow lawyers to the Appellant
deliver letters to the Appellant.
“The action of the Respondent in
the instant case is a flagrant violation of the appellant’s right to counsel of
his own choice as stipulated in Section 36 (6) (c) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”
Also, Kanu’s team accused Justice
Nyako of erring in law when she ordered for accelerated hearing of the case
given the facts of the case showing that the respondent had consistently
refused to afford the Appellant the right to adequate facility to prepare for
the defence of the charges levelled against the Appellant and his right to
counsel, and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice against the Appellant
and in favour of the Respondent.
They insisted that the judge
“cannot order accelerated hearing of a criminal charge where it is brought to
the attention of the Court that the Appellant is denied the adequate facilities
to prepare his defence and his right to counsel.”
“The order for accelerated
hearing of the case in face of the constitutional breaches of fair
hearing/trial rights of the Appellant is a credence to the Respondent to
proceed on the unconstitutional denial of the Appellant his right to adequate
facilities to prepare for his defence and his right to counsel of his choice,”
they added.
