The High Court of Justice in Kaduna State will hear the motion put forward by Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, asking for the dismissal of the case against him by the Nigerian Government over its failure to produce evidence on July 30.
El-Zakzaky and his wife, Zeenat, have been detained by the Nigerian Government since 2015 after hundreds of his followers were killed by the Nigerian Army in Zaria, Kaduna State.
Femi Falana (SAN), had asked the court to quash the charges preferred against El-Zakzaky by the Nigerian Government for not “disclosing an offence known to law contrary to Section 36 (8) and (12) of the 1999 constitution as amended”.
In the hearing notice seen by SaharaReporters on Thursday, the court asked both parties to bring evidence supporting “his own case or contradicting that of the opponent”.
The initial motion by El-Zakzaky’s lawyers reads, “An order of this honourable court quashing count one of the charge in its entirety for not disclosing an offence known to law contrary to Sections 36 (8) and (12) of the 1999 constitution as amended, or in the alternative, an order of this honourable court quashing count one of the charges in its entirety for being an abuse of court process and/ or devoid of proof of evidence, evincing a prima facie case or a disclosure of the offences and/ or for failure to link the defendants to the offences purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses and/ or the statements of the defendants as well as the documents attached to the purported charge.
“An order of this honourable court quashing count two of the charge in its entirety for being an abuse of court process and devoid of proof of evidence or disclosure of the offences and/ or for failure to link the defendants to the offences purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses (and/ or the statements of the defendants) as well as the documents attached to the charge.
“An order of this honourable court quashing count three of the charge in its entirety for being an abuse of court process and devoid of proof of evidence or disclosure of the offences and/or for failure to link the defendants to the offences purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses and/ or the statements of the defendants as well as the documents attached to the purported charge.
“An order of this honourable court quashing count four of the charge in its entirety for being an abuse of court process and devoid of proof of evidence or disclosure of the offence charged and/or for failure to link the defendants to the offences purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses and/or the statements of the defendants as well as the documents attached to the purported charge.
“An order of this honourable court quashing count five of the charge in its entirety being an abuse of court process and devoid of proof of evidence or disclosure of the offences charged and/or for failure to link the defendants to the offence(s) purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses and the statements and/ or the statements of the defendants as well as the documents attached to the charge.
“An order of this honourable court quashing count six of the charge in its entirety for not disclosing an offence known to law contrary to sections 36 (8) and (12) of the 1999 constitution as amended, or in the alternative, an order of this honourable court quashing count six of the charge in its entirety for being an abuse of court process and/ or devoid of proof of evidence, evincing a prima facie case or a disclosure of the offences and/or for failure to link the defendants to the offences purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses and/ or the statements of the defendants as well as the documents attached to the purported charge.
“An order of this honourable court quashing count seven of the charge in its entirety for being an abuse of court process and devoid of proof of evidence or disclosure of the offences and/or for failure to link the defendants to the offences purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses and/ or the statements of the defendants as well as the documents attached to the purported charge.
“An order of this honourable court quashing count eight of the charge in its entirety for being an abuse of court process and devoid of proof of evidence disclosing a prima facie case or a disclosure of the offences and/ or for failure to link the defendants to the offences purportedly charged from the statements of the witnesses and/or the statements of the defendants as well as the documents attached to the purported charge.”
Falana also asked the court to free his client, who has suffered numerous health challenges as a result of his incarceration.
