This post has already been read 494 times!
The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice has filed an appeal against the decision of the Abuja Court of Appeal, which releases Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Mr. Kanu’s lawyer, confirmed receipt of court documents related to the appeal.
Ejiofor, in a telephone interview with PREMIUM TIMES on Thursday, said that Kanu’s lead attorney, Mike Ozekhome, Senior Counsel for Nigeria (SAN), received a copy of court documents on the appeal at 5 p.m. Wednesday.
The government was reported to have argued in its notice of appeal that the Court of Appeal was wrong to criticize Mr. Kanu’s extraordinary rendition to Nigeria and went ahead to drop the charges against him on that basis.
He also argued that the court was wrong when it dismissed the pending terrorism charge against the IPOB leader.
The Abuja Court of Appeal, on October 13, overturned the terrorism charges brought against Mr. Kanu by the government.
It argued that the IPOB leader was “extraordinarily rendition” to Nigeria in flagrant violation of the country’s extradition treaty and Mr. Kanu’s fundamental human rights.
The court ordered the release of Mr. Kanu from the custody of the State Security Service (SSS), where he has been detained since he was returned to Nigeria in June last year.
But the Federation Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, and his counterpart at the Ministry of Police Affairs, Muhammad Dingyadi, argued that the Court of Appeal only acquitted Mr. Kanu and did not acquit him.
“Let it be clear to the general public that other pre-surrender issues under which Kanu skipped bail remain valid issues for judicial determination.
“The federal government will consider all available options presented to us regarding the rendition judgment as it seeks determination of pre-surrender issues,” Malami said.
The minister’s claims have been criticized by lawyers as a hollow basis for further detention of a suspect whose charges have been dropped.
The Government asks the Supreme Court to suspend the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeals
In addition to appealing the decision of the Court of Appeals, the government has applied to the Supreme Court for an order to stay the execution of the sentence of power.
The AGF office filed the request for suspension of execution on Thursday.
Mr. Kanu was first arrested in 2015 and charged with various offences, including felony treason for his separatist activities advocating the secession of the south-east and some parts of the south-south as an independent nation of Biafra.
He was granted bail and was released in 2017.
But he subsequently fled the country in September of the same year after soldiers invaded his home in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, Abia state.
In the same month, the government obtained an order from the Federal High Court in Abuja outlawing IPOB and labeling it a terrorist organization.
Mr. Kanu, a dual citizen of Nigeria and the United Kingdom (UK), is believed to have settled in the UK after leaving Nigeria.
But he was arrested in Kenya and returned to Nigeria in June last year.
The government then raised the charges against him from seven to 15 to include the terrorism offenses he allegedly committed by inciting violence through social media posts.
But in a ruling issued on April 8, at the request of Kanu’s legal team, trial judge Binta Nyako of the Abuja Federal High Court quashed eight of the 15 charges.
Ms. Nyako dismissed charges 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, which she considered repetitive and invalid.
Disgusted that the judge did not drop all the charges, Mr. Kanu appealed again to the Court of Appeal.
At his sentencing on October 13, a three-member Court of Appeal panel led by Oludotun Adefope-Okojie quashed the remaining seven terrorism charges, arguing that the government violated local and international law in forcibly surrendering Mr. Kanu to Nigeria. .
It held that the court of first instance, the Federal High Court, lacked jurisdiction to proceed with Mr. Kanu’s trial as a result of the violation of his fundamental rights by state agents.
“With the unlawful kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of the appellant, there was a clear violation by the respondent (Federal Government) of international treaties and conventions, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,” Mr. Adefope said. -Okojie. he said.
