EXPOSED: BUHARI COMMITTED TREASONABLE FELONY DEC. 31st 1983, NOT NNAMDI KANU

BIAFRA:

EXPOSED: BUHARI COMMITTED TREASONABLE FELONY DEC. 31st 1983, NOT NNAMDI KANU

                                     Major General Muhammadu Buhari
The president of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari and his errand boys, the DSS, accused the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Director of Radio Biafra and Biafra TV Nnamdi Kanu of treasonable felony when in the actually it's Muhammadu Buhari who committed treason

In July 1966, Lieutenant Muhammadu Buhari was one of the participants in a coup, led by Lt-Col Murtala Muhammed, that overthrew and assassinated Nigeria's first military Head of State General Aguiyi Ironsi.

Nine years later, in 1975, Lieutenant Colonel Muhammadu Buhari was among a group of officers (led by Colonels Ibrahim Taiwo, Joseph Garba, Abdulahi Mohammed, Anthony Ochefu, Lieutenant Colonels Shehu Musa Yar'Adua, Ibrahim Babangida and Alfred Aduloju) who overthrew the Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon. Col. Buhari was appointed a military governor of the North Eastern State after the successful execution of the coup.

MUST READ: NIGERIA'S CIVIL GOVERNMENT OF SHEHU SHAGARI OVERTHROWN BY BUHARI

Yet again, Major-General Buhari led the military coup of December 31st, 1983 that overthrew the democratically elected government of President Shehu Shagari. At the time of the coup plot, Buhari was the General Officer Commanding (GOC), Third Armored Division of Jos. With the successful execution of the coup by General Buhari, Tunde Idiagbon was appointed Chief of General Staff (the de facto No. 2 in the administration). The coup ended Nigeria's short-lived Second Republic, a period of multi-party democracy started in 1979. According to The New York Times, the officers who took power argued that "a flawed democracy was worse than no democracy at all". Buhari justified the military's seizure of power by castigating the civilian government as hopelessly corrupt and promptly suspended Nigeria’s 1979 Constitution.

Muhammadu Buhari denied his role in the December 1983 coup; however, the example of Major Bamidele betrays Buhari's complicity in the December 1983 coup. Nigerian military historians Max Siollun and Nowa Omoigui note that when Major Bamidele got wind of the coup to oust Shagari, Bamidele reported the issue up the chain of command to his GOC 3rd Armored Division (Major General Buhari) who was allegedly in on the plot. To prevent Bamidele from leaking the plot, Buhari ordered the arrest and detention of Bamidele for two weeks. Bamidele was not released until the successful execution of the coup. 

Learning from this unfortunate experience, Bamidele did not report any rumours of the so-called Vatsa coup (between 1985 and 1986) and was executed for it. Bamidele's words to the Special Military Tribunal that tried and convicted him are:

"I heard of the 1983 coup planning, told my GOC General Buhari who detained me for two weeks in Lagos. Instead of a pat on the back, I received a stab. How then do you expect me to report this one? This trial marks the eclipse of my brilliant and unblemished career of 19 years. I fought in the civil war with the ability it pleased God to give me. It is unfortunate that I'm being convicted for something which I have had to stop on two occasions. This is not self-adulation but a sincere summary of the qualities inherent in me. It is an irony of fate that the president of the tribunal who in 1964 felt that I was good enough to take training in the UK is now saddled with the duty of showing me the exit from the force and the world." 

If a military officer who heard of a coup plot and failed to report it could be tried and executed, can any sane person tell me why the military officer who actually executed a coup should be walking free today as a President of same nation which government he once toppled?

It is clear to the world now that Muhammadu Buhari is a treasonable felon. It is also worth noting, that Muhammadu Buhari has not been tried for these crimes, rather, this tyrant has been allowed to go scot-free. This man should be in jail not in the seat of the presidency. He has nothing good to offer as a president. With Muhammadu Buhari as the president of Nigeria, Nigeria, as a country and, in fact, the likes of Obama of America and David Cameron of Britain have lent their support to the predicted demise of the great edifice of evil, Nigeria.

DOES TALKING ON A RADIO AMOUNT TO TREASON?




The activities of Nnamdi Kanu that has been interpreted as treason by Muhammadu Buhari are: Fighting for the freedom of the indigenous people of Biafra, uniting Biafrans all over the world, telling the world the truth about Nigeria and Biafra which has been hidden from the world by the British and Nigerian government for many years, using radio Biafra London as a medium. I must reiterate here that Nnamdi Kanu is a prisoner of conscience (POC) He is being illegally detained on the order of Muhammadu Buhari.

I will hereby call on the men and women of goodwill, governments of the world, US, UN, EU and the international communities to speak up for the release of Nnamdi Kanu and peaceful exit of Biafrans from Nigeria through a transparent referendum.

Written By Chijindu Benjamin Ukah

Editor:  Ikechukwu Nwaorisa

By  BIAFRA WRITERS

BUHARI: THE DEATH OF NNAMDI KANU WILL BE THE END OF NIGERIA

Nnamdi Kanu The Leader Of The Indigenous People Of Biafra

Five months on, the Nigerian government still have been unable to provide proofs to substantiate the concocted allegations, failure in providing legal requirements of witnesses to testify against Nnamdi Kanu. Making matter worst is the censorship of the Nigerian judiciary by inducing the presiding judge in the person of John Tsoho of the federal high court Maitama, Abuja in altering and misinterpreting laws to favour their inconsistencies, lies and deceits. As all these ill-conceived plans are improbable, they have resorted and conspired to finally silence i.e to summarily kill Nnamdi Kanu. Is this not a big shame to Nigeria?

It is pertinent to note that the outcome of any eventuality on Nnamdi Kanu's life or health will definitely be met with defiance as never witnessed before in Nigeria. May I remind Nigeria that Nnamdi Kanu himself told them that "...he will rather remain in detention than to subject himself to their erroneous trial which the outcome will never be respected".
The conspired plot to assassinate Nnamdi Kanu which took place on Saturday 26th March 2016 at Abuja in a secret organized by Muhammadu Buhari had Messrs: Lawal Musa Daura, Governor Willie Obiano, Governor Rochas Okorocha, Governor Victor Okezie Ikpeazu and Lawrence Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi in attendance concluded on a false flagged hijack attempt on the vehicle that will convey Nnamdi Kanu to court.

Read also:BUHARI'S ASSASSINATION PLOT AGAINST NNAMDI KANU

 They concluded to contract some assassins that will camouflage as IPOB members and stage the false flagged hijack. In the process, the operatives of Department of State Services (DSS) will kill Nnamdi Kanu and then claim that he died in a crossfire during the purported hijack. The second option is to kill Nnamdi Kanu by poisoning his food. The same treatment that was meted on late M.K.O. Abiola.
But then again, the Nigerian government under the auspicious leadership of the ex coup plotter, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari must understand that the death of Nnamdi Kanu, either intentional or otherwise will be the end of the british creation called Nigeria.

History is gradually repeating itself again in Nigeria. It is thus high time the world understood that the Biafrans are not ready to take things for granted again. Prior to May 1967, Biafrans were pursued and hounded in all their habitats, streets, churces, workplaces and markets in Nigeria. These systematically orchestrated massacres of Biafrans led to a defensive genocidal war by Biafrans against a well-supported Nigerian military majorly backed and supported by the British government and her allies.

This genocidal war resulted in the destruction, displacement and death of more than five million (5million) innocent and defenseless children, women and men of Biafran extraction. The Red Cross and other relief agencies were prohibited from flying into Biafra to supply the much-needed supplies. All these that happened between 1967-1970 were a result of execution of all Biafrans in most cities in Nigeria. The same history is gradually ushering itself in again. There is a red alert on Nnamdi Kanu's life. It is therefore the reason why we the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is using this medium to reach out to the entirety of humanity to understand what is going on withing and with Biafraland and her people.

Also read:BUHARI, CONVICTED FOR TREASON AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

The inability of the Nigerian government in proving  him wrong in the court and the squeezed plot to assassinate Nnamdi Kanu who in all legitimacy anchors the call for the restoration of Biafra will definitely erupt to another war which no one will escape from. The Nigerian Government with these Eastern Governors will not take anything as an excuse this time around as the infuriation is getting high. Recently, governor Willie Obiano killed more that 25 peaceful protesters at Onitsha, Victor Okezie Ikpeazu massacred a great number of Biafrans while praying and fasting in Aba, Abia state and Rochas Okorocha killed many Biafran in Imo state as well. As all these killings are ongoing, the (IPOB) had remained law-abiding and peaceful till date but we will surely respond to any eventuality against Nnamdi Kanu.

Written By Amalahueze Akaeze.
Edited By Obioma Ebere
Published By Nwosu C.S
By Biafra Writers

MOHAMMADU BUHARI AND NNAMDI KANU WHO COMMITTED TREASON?

BIAFRA:
MOHAMMADU BUHARI AND NNAMDI KANU WHO COMMITTED TREASON?

The word Treason the world over has only one meaning. Not two, not three, just one meaning. According to section 37(1) of the criminal code Act,"treason" occurs when someone actually wages a war, or conspires with any person to wage war against the country "in order to intimidate or overawe the President or the Governor of a state" When one wages war to overtake a government, he has committed treason.

READ THIS: Nigerian Civil Government of President Shehu Shagari Overthrown in a military coupe
Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra and the Director of Radio Biafra London was arrested in Lagos, October 2015 and was charged with treason after he won the two previous charges preferred against him. It is highly disheartening that the Federal Government of Nigeria could only discover that Nnamdi Kanu committed Treason after he was discharged and acquitted of two previous charges. Could it be that the Federal government DSS forgot what constitutes Treason as at the time of charging him to court or that the law on treason was inexistent as at the time Kanu was being prosecuted for “belonging to an unlawful society” and later of “Terrorism”, the two charges for which he was discharged and acquitted?

RELATED: DSS COOKS UP TERRORISM CHARGE AGAINST KANU

In line with what constitutes Treasonable Felony, we want to compare and contrast General Muhammadu Buhari (retd) and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. On December 31st, 1983, General Muhammadu Buhari (retd) overthrew the democratically elected government of Shehu Shagari in a bloodless coup de tat and removed the elected President of the Federal republic of Nigeria and took over that government. Muhammadu Buhari took his men on arm attacked a sitting government and sacked the democratically elected government, arrested the President and his Vice. This act amounts to treason or Treasonable Felony.
MUST READ: BUHARI NIGERIA'S HEAD OF STATE, 1983-1985

But until date Muhammadu Buhari has not been charged with treason nor has he been given any form of pardon for this heinous crime against the Nigerian State. Nnamdi Kanu, joined by the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, through Radio Biafra London has been calling for the Self-Determination of the people of the South-Eastern states, the (so called) South-south states, Niger Delta and parts of Idoma and Igala of the lower Benue for the nation of Biafra. Nnamdi Kanu never sought to take over Nigeria’s government by overthrowing the elected president. He sought for the independence of his people through a laid down international law of the United Nations.  At no time did he make moves to topple Nigeria Government.  It is, therefore, unbelievable that this Treasonable Felon General Muhammadu Buhari  (retd) is presently prosecuting Mr. Nnamdi Kanu for Treason which he never committed. That is why we call on the international community to check between Muhammadu Buhari and Nnamdi Kanu who is a Treasonable Felon.

RELATED: WHO HAS COMMITTED TREASON BETWEEN NNAMDI KANU AND MUHAMMADU BUHARI?

Muhammadu Buhari should not have qualified to run for the presidency of any country, not because academically he is a write-off, but the fact that he is a criminal that should be in jail. But NO, rather he is now sitting and charging an innocent man for treason, which he Buhari committed.
We, the Indigenous People of  Biafra are therefore highly disappointed that the whole world and the United Nations are all mute blind and deaf of this anomaly until the madman in Aso Rock sends an innocent man to jail for the crime he is innocent of. If anyone is to be prosecuted for treason, that person should be Muhammadu Buhari

Written by  Ikechukwu  Nwaorisa
For BIAFRA WRITERS

Biafra: FG seeks dismissal of Kanu, others appeal -vanguardngr

 ….as hearing begins April 25 

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri ‎ 

ABUJA—-The Federal Government, has asked the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to dismiss an appeal that was lodged by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu. Kanu, alongside two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu, had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they termed “strange procedure” adopted in their trial Already, the trio ‎who are answering to a six-count treason charge, has urged the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to stay further hearing on the case against them, pending the determination of their consolidated appeal. Specifically, they alleged bias against trial Justice John Tsoho who not only ‎declined to quash the charge against them, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of eight witnesses billed to testify in the ‎matter. 

The Judge equally refused to discharge and acquit the three defendants as it was prayed to do under ‎section 351(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.‎ ‎The defendants, through their lawyer Chief Chuks Muoma, SAN, ‎contended before the appellate court that trial Justice Tsoho erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19, 2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March 7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”. They noted that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mr. Mohammed Diri. ‎The DPP had informed the court that witnesses scheduled to testify against Kanu and the others, said they would not appear unless they were allowed to wear masks or their identities shielded from both lawyers and people observing the proceeding. “My lord this is because they are already receiving threats from associates of the defendants that they will be dealt with. The witnesses said they love their lives and requested that their identities be shielded from people who are coming to witness the proceeding”, Diri added. He said DSS operatives also billed to testify in the matter, made similar request on the basis that they are investigating terrorism cases and would not want their identities exposed. Sequel to his application, Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the witnesses to testify behind a screen. 

The judge insisted that the decision did not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the witnesses from appearing in mask. The defendants had‎ on February 9, opposed FG’s application for secret trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing ‎”masquerades” to testify against them. Though Justice Tsoho maintained that the order he made on Monday was in tandem with the ruling of February 9, the defence lawyer, Muoma, SAN, went on appeal to challenge the revised order for the identities of the witnesses to be protected. ‎Muoma, SAN, ‎contended that the trial court had become functus-officio on the matter, having earlier ruled on the previous application by the prosecution. It was his argument that FG ought to have appealed against that the ruling instead of re-approaching the same court with a similar application.‎ He is praying the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer their case to another Judge for trial. Nevertheless, FG, in a counter-affidavit ‎it filed before the appellate court, sought the dismissal of the appeal which it said lacked merit. 

The DPP who endorsed the appeal, argued that the March 7‎ order of the high court did not amount to a variation of the previous order of the court. FG insisted that Kanu and the others were never denied fair-hearing by Justice Tsoho to warrant re-assignment of the case-file to another Judge. ‎Besides, it accused the defendants of attempting to use frivolous interlocutory appeals to delay their trial. Whereas Justice Tsoho has fixed April 5 to hear the motion seeking his disqualification from the matter, the appellate court on the other hand has slated April 25 to commence hearing on the appeal President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa earlier constituted a three-man panel of Justices to hear the appeal. The appellate court panel will be presided over by Justice Moore Adumein. 

‎The Department of State Service, DSS, previously alleged plot by some pro-Biafra agitators to invade the trial court and forcefully free the defendants. The DPP told the court that the DSS had commenced investigation on the planned invasion. ‎Kanu who was hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra and Television, ‎has been in detention since October 14, 2015, when he was arrested by security operatives upon his arrival to Nigeria from his base in the United Kingdom. 

The defendants were alleged to have committed treasonable felony, an offence punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. FG alleged that they were the ones managing the affairs of the IPOB which it described as “an unlawful society”. Specifically, Kanu was alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into Nigeria, which he used to disseminate “hate broadcasts”, encouraging the “secession of the Republic ofBiafra”, from Nigeria. The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge on January 20, even as the court ordered their remand at Kuje prison ‎in Abuja.‎

Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/03/no-plan-retrench-civil-servants-fg/

….as hearing begins April 25 By Ikechukwu Nnochiri ‎ ABUJA—-The Federal Government, has asked the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to dismiss an appeal that was lodged by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu. Kanu, alongside two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu, had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they termed “strange procedure” adopted in their trial Already, the trio ‎who are answering to a six-count treason charge, has urged the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to stay further hearing on the case against them, pending the determination of their consolidated appeal. Specifically, they alleged bias against trial Justice John Tsoho who not only ‎declined to quash the charge against them, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of eight witnesses billed to testify in the ‎matter. The Judge equally refused to discharge and acquit the three defendants as it was prayed to do under ‎section 351(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.‎ ‎The defendants, through their lawyer Chief Chuks Muoma, SAN, ‎contended before the appellate court that trial Justice Tsoho erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19, 2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March 7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”. They noted that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mr. Mohammed Diri. ‎The DPP had informed the court that witnesses scheduled to testify against Kanu and the others, said they would not appear unless they were allowed to wear masks or their identities shielded from both lawyers and people observing the proceeding. “My lord this is because they are already receiving threats from associates of the defendants that they will be dealt with. The witnesses said they love their lives and requested that their identities be shielded from people who are coming to witness the proceeding”, Diri added. He said DSS operatives also billed to testify in the matter, made similar request on the basis that they are investigating terrorism cases and would not want their identities exposed. Sequel to his application, Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the witnesses to testify behind a screen. The judge insisted that the decision did not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the witnesses from appearing in mask. The defendants had‎ on February 9, opposed FG’s application for secret trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing ‎”masquerades” to testify against them. Though Justice Tsoho maintained that the order he made on Monday was in tandem with the ruling of February 9, the defence lawyer, Muoma, SAN, went on appeal to challenge the revised order for the identities of the witnesses to be protected. ‎Muoma, SAN, ‎contended that the trial court had become functus-officio on the matter, having earlier ruled on the previous application by the prosecution. It was his argument that FG ought to have appealed against that the ruling instead of re-approaching the same court with a similar application.‎ He is praying the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer their case to another Judge for trial. Nevertheless, FG, in a counter-affidavit ‎it filed before the appellate court, sought the dismissal of the appeal which it said lacked merit. The DPP who endorsed the appeal, argued that the March 7‎ order of the high court did not amount to a variation of the previous order of the court. FG insisted that Kanu and the others were never denied fair-hearing by Justice Tsoho to warrant re-assignment of the case-file to another Judge. ‎Besides, it accused the defendants of attempting to use frivolous interlocutory appeals to delay their trial. Whereas Justice Tsoho has fixed April 5 to hear the motion seeking his disqualification from the matter, the appellate court on the other hand has slated April 25 to commence hearing on the appeal President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa earlier constituted a three-man panel of Justices to hear the appeal. The appellate court panel will be presided over by Justice Moore Adumein. ‎The Department of State Service, DSS, previously alleged plot by some pro-Biafra agitators to invade the trial court and forcefully free the defendants. The DPP told the court that the DSS had commenced investigation on the planned invasion. ‎Kanu who was hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra and Television, ‎has been in detention since October 14, 2015, when he was arrested by security operatives upon his arrival to Nigeria from his base in the United Kingdom. The defendants were alleged to have committed treasonable felony, an offence punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. FG alleged that they were the ones managing the affairs of the IPOB which it described as “an unlawful society”. Specifically, Kanu was alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into Nigeria, which he used to disseminate “hate broadcasts”, encouraging the “secession of the Republic ofBiafra”, from Nigeria. The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge on January 20, even as the court ordered their remand at Kuje prison ‎in Abuja.‎

Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/03/no-plan-retrench-civil-servants-fg/

….as hearing begins April 25 By Ikechukwu Nnochiri ‎ ABUJA—-The Federal Government, has asked the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to dismiss an appeal that was lodged by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu. Kanu, alongside two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu, had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they termed “strange procedure” adopted in their trial Already, the trio ‎who are answering to a six-count treason charge, has urged the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to stay further hearing on the case against them, pending the determination of their consolidated appeal. Specifically, they alleged bias against trial Justice John Tsoho who not only ‎declined to quash the charge against them, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of eight witnesses billed to testify in the ‎matter. The Judge equally refused to discharge and acquit the three defendants as it was prayed to do under ‎section 351(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.‎ ‎The defendants, through their lawyer Chief Chuks Muoma, SAN, ‎contended before the appellate court that trial Justice Tsoho erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19, 2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March 7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”. They noted that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mr. Mohammed Diri. ‎The DPP had informed the court that witnesses scheduled to testify against Kanu and the others, said they would not appear unless they were allowed to wear masks or their identities shielded from both lawyers and people observing the proceeding. “My lord this is because they are already receiving threats from associates of the defendants that they will be dealt with. The witnesses said they love their lives and requested that their identities be shielded from people who are coming to witness the proceeding”, Diri added. He said DSS operatives also billed to testify in the matter, made similar request on the basis that they are investigating terrorism cases and would not want their identities exposed. Sequel to his application, Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the witnesses to testify behind a screen. The judge insisted that the decision did not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the witnesses from appearing in mask. The defendants had‎ on February 9, opposed FG’s application for secret trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing ‎”masquerades” to testify against them. Though Justice Tsoho maintained that the order he made on Monday was in tandem with the ruling of February 9, the defence lawyer, Muoma, SAN, went on appeal to challenge the revised order for the identities of the witnesses to be protected. ‎Muoma, SAN, ‎contended that the trial court had become functus-officio on the matter, having earlier ruled on the previous application by the prosecution. It was his argument that FG ought to have appealed against that the ruling instead of re-approaching the same court with a similar application.‎ He is praying the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer their case to another Judge for trial. Nevertheless, FG, in a counter-affidavit ‎it filed before the appellate court, sought the dismissal of the appeal which it said lacked merit. The DPP who endorsed the appeal, argued that the March 7‎ order of the high court did not amount to a variation of the previous order of the court. FG insisted that Kanu and the others were never denied fair-hearing by Justice Tsoho to warrant re-assignment of the case-file to another Judge. ‎Besides, it accused the defendants of attempting to use frivolous interlocutory appeals to delay their trial. Whereas Justice Tsoho has fixed April 5 to hear the motion seeking his disqualification from the matter, the appellate court on the other hand has slated April 25 to commence hearing on the appeal President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa earlier constituted a three-man panel of Justices to hear the appeal. The appellate court panel will be presided over by Justice Moore Adumein. ‎The Department of State Service, DSS, previously alleged plot by some pro-Biafra agitators to invade the trial court and forcefully free the defendants. The DPP told the court that the DSS had commenced investigation on the planned invasion. ‎Kanu who was hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra and Television, ‎has been in detention since October 14, 2015, when he was arrested by security operatives upon his arrival to Nigeria from his base in the United Kingdom. The defendants were alleged to have committed treasonable felony, an offence punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. FG alleged that they were the ones managing the affairs of the IPOB which it described as “an unlawful society”. Specifically, Kanu was alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into Nigeria, which he used to disseminate “hate broadcasts”, encouraging the “secession of the Republic ofBiafra”, from Nigeria. The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge on January 20, even as the court ordered their remand at Kuje prison ‎in Abuja.‎

Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/03/no-plan-retrench-civil-servants-fg/

IPOB Leader Nnamdi Kanu: Is The Trial Judge Biased?

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, alongside two of his co-defendants, raised an allegation of bias against Justice James Tsoho of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja who is currently presiding over the charge made against them by the Federal High Court.
They specifically made an allegation of bias against the trial judge before whom they were docked on January 20, 2016, on charges that touch on treasonable felony, and subsequently made an application that the case be transferred to another judge.

The request of the trio was made known in a notice of appeal and motion of stay of proceedings pending appeal initiated by the defendants.
Interestingly, this would be the second time Kanu and others would be stating their doubts concerning the ability of their trial judge to endure justice and fairness in their trial.
To be particular, the IPOB leader had, in December 23, 2015, informed Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the same court that he was not confident that the judge would ensure justice and would not be bias.
Kanu had insisted that he got wind that Justice Mohammed cannot ensure justice in his trial, just as he demanded that the case be transferred to another judge.

On the basis of this request, Justice Mohammed withdrew from the case and returned the case file to the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, who later reassigned the case to Tsoho.
The IPOB boss and his colleagues were docked before Justice Tsoho on six counts of treasonable felony, unlawful possession of firearms and other offences bordering on their agitation for secession ‎of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.
According to their notice of appeal, the defendants are asking the Court of Appeal for, “An order of this honourable court directing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer the trial hearing of the substantive charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/15, currently pending before Justice J. Tsoho to another judge of the Federal High Court for trial.”

They contended that the judge erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of the prosecution to testify behind screens, or masked” on February 19, 2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March 7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent.”
Kanu further posited that the judge granted the prosecution’s oral application without jurisdiction, and thereby “occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”

“There is manifest bias on the part of the learned trial judge in the conduct of this case, which is apparent in the unwholesome manner his order was reviewed to give undue advantage to the prosecution, in flagrant violation of the appellants’ right to fair trial, as constitutionally guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
“That this honourable court has no jurisdiction to re-litigate on issue it had already decided.
“That the court had manifested serious bias in the conduct of this trial, which is gravely impeding the defendants’ constitutional rights to fair hearing/trial.”

Source