The Court of Appeal in Abuja, Nigeria on Thursday, struck out the terrorism charges against the detained proscribed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu preferred against him by the Nigerian government.
The court discharged and acquitted him of the seven-count charge pending against him before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The appellate court, in a decision by a three-man panel led by Justice Jummai Hanatu said, it was satisfied that Nigerian government flagrantly violated law, when it forcefully renditioned Mr Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria for the continuation of his trial.
It held that 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 Nigerian 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 due process to extradition proceeding.
The Court held that,“Where a party fails to controvert a deposition by an opponent, the issue not contested is deemed conceded”.
It added that the onus was on Nigerian government to prove the legality of the Appellant’s arrest and return from Kenya.
The Court also, noted that Nigeria is a signatory to the OAU convention which it ratified on April 28, 2022, 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.
The appellate court held that the Federal government action tainted the entire proceeding it initiated against Kanu and amounted to “an abuse of criminal prosecution in general”.
“The court will never shy away from calling the Executive to order when it tilts towards Executive recklessness”, the Appellate court held, even as it accused FG 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.
It held that the proscription order of the group by the lower court would subsist until it is set-aside.
Emmanuel Ukoh
