September 13, (THEWILL) – The Court of Appeal, Abuja, has reserved judgement on an appeal, filed by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu, who is being tried by the Federal Government for terrorism and treasonable felony charges, had filed an appeal, No:CA/ABJ/CR/ 625/2022, challenging the legal competence of the charges preferred against him by the Federal Government.
Insisting that the charges the Federal Government entered against him had no basis in law, Kanu prayed the court to review the April 8 ruling of the trial court, which struck out only eight out of the 15-count charge, as well as an order for his release on bail, pending the determination of his appeal.
While hearing on the appeal was initially fixed for October 11, following an application, the embattled IPOB leader filed for abridgment of time, the appellate court brought the matter forward for hearing.
During proceedings on Tuesday, the Court asked the federal government’s legal team to confirm if Kanu’s charges were amended seven times since 2015.
Lawyer from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, D. Kaswe, admitted in the affirmative.
Recall that Justice Binta Inyako had on the 8th of April, struck out 8 out of the 15-count terrorism-related charges against Kanu.
Dissatisfied, Kanu, through his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the remaining seven-count terrorism-related charge filed against his client.
A three-man panel, led by Justice Jummai Hannatu, from Gombe Division, presided over the case on Tuesday.
Ozekhome told the appellate court that Kanu is a defendant in a 2015 case before the Federal High Court, adding that he was granted bail on September 2017, and has not breached the terms.
“In September 2017, agents of the federal government invaded his ancestral home and he escaped to Israel and then to the United Kingdom.
“While Kanu travelled to Kenya, agents of the AGF forcefully abducted and tortured him and he was extradited back to Nigeria without any authorisation from Kenya authorities”, he said, adding that the remaining counts of the charge ought not to have been retained by the lower court because at the time, Kanu was renditioned back to Kenya, he was already facing a five-count charge in line with the Extradition Act.
He contended that the AGF should not have rearraigned him on new charges.
“The seven count charge cannot stand because it was filed illegally against the Extradition Act, which requires authorisation from Kenya authorities (court)”, he said.
Ozekhome told the court that four out of the original five count charges were removed and 14 new charges introduced.
He maintained that the forceful rendition of Kanu has not been denied by the federal government and that all the counts alleged except one, did not mention the location where Kanu allegedly committed the offence.
“You must show where the offences were committed. The Federal High Court does not have global jurisdiction over criminal matters. We are urging my lord to grant our appeal”, he said.
On his part, D. Kaswe, Assistant Chief State Counsel from the Chambers of the Attorney-General of the Federation, told the Court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
He argued that the Federal Government was never given opportunity to produce evidence because of Kanu’s over 19 applications.
He said while the appellant “vanished into the thin air”, it took resources to rearrest and extradite Kanu to face charges in Nigeria.
“By due process of the law, Kanu was brought back to Nigeria,” he insisted. On what grounds did the lower court strike out 8 out of the 15 count charge? The panel asked. The trial court struck out those counts because there was no proof of evidence”, Kaswe replied.
Responding the question by the panel on why the charges were amended seven times, Kaswe said, “Some of the reasons for the amendment is based on the conduct of Kanu. ‘Leave that please, let’s move forward,” Justice Hannatu interjected.”
Kaswe contended that contrary to Ozekhome’s argument, the Federal High Court, Abuja, has territorial jurisdiction to try any case that happened anywhere in Nigeria.
Subsequently, the panel, “reserve judgement to this appeal to a date to be notified to the parties.”
Earlier, Ozekhome had informed the court that he has two other applications for bail and accelerated hearing.
But the appellate court held that since the main appeal is ripe for hearing, bail application has been overtaken by events.
About the Author
