IPOB: Appeal Court reserves judgement on Nigerian govt’s charges against Nnamdi Kanu

IPOB: Appeal Court reserves judgement on Nigerian govt’s charges against Nnamdi Kanu The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has reserved ...

IPOB: Appeal Court reserves judgement on Nigerian govt’s charges against Nnamdi Kanu

The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement on the appeal filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, to quash the terrorism and treasonable felony charge the Federal Government preferred against him.

SaharaReporters had reported that Kanu, who is currently facing trial before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, had through his team of lawyers led by Chief Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), approached the appellate court to interrogate the legal competence of the charge pending against him.

Justice Binta Nyako of Federal High Court Abuja had struck out eight of the 15 count charge Federal Government filed against the IPOB leader.

But Kanu's lawyers appealed against the ruling of the trial court on April 8 and sought the appellate court to review the ruling and struck out the remaining seven-court pending in the lower court.

The lead Counsel of the IPOB leader, had insisted that the charge FG entered against his client had no basis in law, in the appeal dated April 29 and marked CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, applied to be discharged and acquitted.

Kanu equally urged the appellate court to order his release on bail, pending the determination of his appeal.

Though the appeal was initially fixed for October 11, following an application the embattled IPOB leader filed for abridgement of time, the appellate court brought the matter forward for hearing.

When the matter was called up on Tuesday, a three-man panel led by Justice Jummai Hanatu, said it had no need to delve into the issue of bail since the substantive appeal was ripe for hearing, according to Vanguard.

Arguing the appeal, Chief Ozekhome, SAN, alleged that his client was forcefully abducted from Kenya and illegally renditioned back to the country.

He told the court that his client was first arraigned on December 23, 2015 and was later granted bail on April 25, 2017.

“My lords, he was enjoying this bail without breaching the terms. However, he was in his ancestral home when agents of the Respondent invaded his home in September 2017. He barely escaped alive by sheer providence and found himself first in Isreal and later in London.

“When the Appellant travelled from London to Kenya, agents of the Respondents, on June 27, 2021, forcefully abducted the Appellant, tortured and renditioned him back to the country without following any extradition process”, Ozekhome submitted.

He argued that under the Doctrine of Speciality as provided for in section 15 of the Extradition Act, FG, ought to have proceeded to try Kanu on the five-count charge he was initially facing before he escaped from the country.

He argued that Kenya, being the country from where Kanu was arrested and extraordinarily renditioned back to Nigeria, ought to have authorised his extradition.

“This allegation of his forceful abduction and rendition was never denied by the Respondent.

“More so my lords, the charge appears to give the lower court a global jurisdiction over offences that were allegedly committed by the Appellant, without specifying the location or date the said offences were committed.

“There was no need for the lower court to have retained the remaining seven-count charge.

“We are therefore urging my lords to strike out the remaining counts and hold that the Respondent has not established any prima-facie case against the Appellant for which he could be tried”, Ozekhome added.

Meanwhile, the government’s lawyer, Mr. David Kaswe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal for want of merit.

He maintained that the IPOB leader was brought back to the country by due process of the law.

According to him, the charge has been amended seven times owing to the conduct of the Appellant.

“My lords, it took four years and huge resources to get the Respondent arrested and brought back to face the charges against him.

“The Prosecution is ever willing and eager to proceed with trial of the Appellant.

“We are saying that the trial court was even wrong to have struck out the eight counts as it did.

“It is only after FG has produced all its witnesses and tendered its evidence that the Appellant could claim that no prima-facie case was established.

“Finally, we urge this court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit”, Kaswe added.

After it had listened to both sides, the panel said it would communicate a date for the judgment.

Meanwhile, the court has struck out one of the counts in the charge leaving six for determination