It is proving difficult for the Federal government to defend the seven-count charge proffered against the IPOB leader in Court.
By Emma Ede
Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra, IPOB, may soon know his fate as he closed his submission at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, Tuesday, September 13, 2022.
The Appellant Court reserved judgment on the appeal filed by Kanu, seeking dismissal of the remaining seven-count charge filed against him by the Federal Government after the high court dismissed eight of the 15 count charge.
The three-man panel led by Justice Hanatu Jumai Sankey will on judgment determine if Kanu indeed has any case to answer as the appellant has made a no-case submission
At the hearing, Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, informed the court that the appeal was founded on a notice of appeal dated 29 April 2022, and the brief of argument dated June 20, 2022. The respondent filed his reply brief of argument dated July 29, on August 3.
Accordingly, Kanu filed a reply brief on 25th August 2022, deemed consequentially filed on September 13.
Ozekhome, therefore, adopted his processes and urged the panel to grant the appeal as “one of substance and merit”.
Ozekhome argued that the appellant was first arraigned on 23 December 2015, and granted bail on 25 April 2017. He informed the court that agents of the Federal Government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code-named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s hometown on September 2017, which forced him to escape out of the country, to Isreal, then London.
On 27 June 2021, “the FG forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria in a cruelest and inhuman manner. On 29 June 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the FG, where he was re-arraigned.
“Following the appellant’s preliminary objection to the 15-count charge preferred against him by the FG, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, on 8 April 2022, struck out eight counts.
“Our humble submission is that the remaining seven counts ought not to be retrained by the trial court because before the time Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya, he was facing a five-count charge.”
Ozekhome argued that going by section 15 of the Extradition Act, “Kanu is not supposed to be charged without the approval of the Kenyan government. The remaining seven counts, cannot stand, being filed illegally without following due process under the rule of specialty as envisaged under section 15 of the Extradition Act.
“Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, which were retained by the Federal High Court, were offences allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria. These allegations of rendition were never denied by the FG, and you cannot sustain the charge when you extradited the appellant without the approval of Kenyan authority.”
Ozekhome further argued that when charging for an offence, “you must mention the particulars and location where the office was committed. But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offence was allegedly committed .”
He contended that by section 45 (a) of the FHC Act, with regards to criminal charges, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.
More so, “Section 195 and 196 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), state that a charge must have a date, time, location….”
He argued that there was no need to retain the remaining seven counts and urged the court to take over the charges and strike them out.
He also asked the appellate panel to hold that the respondent has not furnished the court with any prima facie case against the appellant for which he is being charged.
Reacting, the FG’s lawyer, Kaswe asked the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
It is now left for the Appeal Court to decide if Kanu has any case to answer given the technical loose ends in the case file against him.
The Kenya government, through its ambassador in Nigeria, denied having any hand in Kanu’s arrest and repatriation to Nigeria. In other words, Nigeria illegally abducted him from Kenya without the approval of the host country.
Against this background, some senior lawyers argue that convicting the IPOB leader may be difficult if the Court follows the law. The case may be allowed to linger in court if the government does not want to release him as there may be no ground sufficient grounds to convict him.
