Court Frees Nnamdi Kanu Of Terrorism Charges
*He’s Discharged, Not Acquitted, Malami Insists
THE Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Thursday, October 13, declared as illegal and unlawful, the abduction of the Biafra nation agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, from Kenya to Nigeria and quashed the entire terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.
In quashing the terrorism charge the Federal Government preferred against the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the court held that the Federal Government breached all local and international laws in the forceful rendition of Kanu to Nigeria, thereby making the terrorism charges against him incompetent and unlawful.
In a judgment in an appeal by Kanu, by Justice Oludotun Adefope-Okojie stated that the criminal charges by the Federal Government against Kanu were voided and set aside, saying the Federal Government, having flagrantly breached the fundamental rights of Kanu, lost the legal right to put him on trial.
The court also held that laws are meant to be obeyed and that the Federal Government has no reason to have taken laws into her own hand in the illegal and unlawful way the matter of Kanu was handled.
The court held that failure of Nigeria to follow due process by way of extradition process, as prescribed by law, was fatal to the charges against Kanu and that the failure of the Federal Government to disclose where and when the alleged offences brought against Kanu were committed was also fatal to the terrorism charges and made them liable to dismissal.
“By engaging in utter unlawful and illegal acts and in breach of its own laws in the instant matter, the Federal Government did not come to equity in clean hands and must be called to order.
“With appalling disregard to local and international laws, the Federal Government has lost the right to put the appellant trial for any offence.
“Treaties and Protocols are meant to be obeyed. No government in the world is permitted to abduct anybody without following due process of extradition. Nigeria is not an exception or excused. Nigeria must obey her own law and that of international, so as to avoid anarchy,” the court held.
It discharged and acquitted him of the seven-count charge pending against him before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
It emphasised that it was satisfied that Federal Government flagrantly violated the law when it forcefully brought Kanu from Kenya to the country for the continuation of his trial, saying such extra-ordinary rendition, without adherence to due process of the law, was a gross violation of all international conventions, protocols and guidelines that Nigeria is signatory to, as well as a breach of the Appellant’s fundamental human rights.
The appellate court noted that Federal Government failed to refute the allegation that the IPOB leader was in Kenya and that he was abducted and brought back to the country without any extradition proceeding, adding that the Federal Government was “ominously silent on the issue” which it described as very pivotal in determining whether the trial court would still have the jurisdiction to continue with the criminal proceeding before it. “In law, that is a costly failure and such failure is an admittance by the Respondent. Where a party fails to controvert a deposition by an opponent, the issue not contested is deemed conceded,” the court held, adding that the onus was on Federal Government to prove the legality of the Appellant’s arrest and return from Kenya.
More so, the court noted that Nigeria is a signatory to OAU Convention, which it ratified on April 28, this year, as well as the Charter of Human and Peoples Rights, which it said prescribed how a wanted person could be transferred from one country to the other.
It held that any extradition request must be in writing, with a statement indicating offences for which a person is wanted, saying the Federal Government’s action tainted the entire proceeding it initiated against Kanu and amounted to “an abuse of criminal prosecution in general.”
It added: “The court will never shy away from calling the Executive to order when it tilts towards Executive recklessness,” even as it accused Federal Government of engaging in “serious abuse of power.”
Nevertheless, the appellate court said it would be pre-judicial for it to make an order on the proscription of IPOB since the issue is still on appeal, stating that the proscription order by the lower court would subsist until it is set aside.
IN his reaction to the judgment, the Federa Government through the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, said Kanu was only discharged by the court, but not acquitted.
Malami, in a statement signed and released on Thursday, October 13 by his Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations, Umar Gwandu, stated that the court’s decision was on a single issue that bordered on rendition, adding that there were other issues predating Kanu’s rendition “on the basis of which Kanu jumped bail,” which remained “valid issues for judicial determination.”
It further stated that the Federal Government would continue to pursue determination of pre-rendition issues, while considering all available options on the judgment on rendition.
The statement read: “The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has received the news of the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the trial of Nnamdi Kanu. For the avoidance of doubt and by the verdict of the Court, Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted.
“Consequently, the appropriate legal options before the authorities will be exploited and communicated accordingly to the public.
“The decision handed down by the court of appeal was on a single issue that borders on rendition.”
