The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja Nigeria on Tuesday, reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking dismissal of the remaining 7-count charge filed against him by the Nigerian Government.
The panel led by Justice Hanatu Jumai Sankey said it will communicate the date for judgment to parties.
When the appeal came up for hearing, counsel to Kanu, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN informed the 3-man panel of the appellate court that the appeal was predicated on a notice of appeal dated 29 April 2022, while the brief of argument was dated June 20, 2022.
He said the respondent filed its reply brief of argument dated July 29, but filed on August 3.
The appellant filed a reply brief on 25 August 2022 but deemed consequentially filed today, September 13.
Ozekhome adopted his processes, and urged the panel to grant the appeal as “one of substance and merit“.
By way of adumbration, Ozekhome told the Court of Appeal 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.
The senior advocate recalled that on 27 June 2021, “the Federal Government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria in the most cruel and inhuman manner”.
“On 29 June 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the Nigerian Government, where he was re-arraigned.
“Following the appellant’s preliminary objection to the 15-count charge preferred against him by the Federal Government, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, on 8 April 2022, struck out 8 counts.
“Our humble submission is that the remaining 7 counts ought not to be retained by the trial court because, before the time Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya, he was facing a 5-count charge.
Ozekhome submitted 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 7 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 offenses allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria”.
In addition, Ozekhome argued that when charging for an offense, “you must mention the particulars and location where the office was committed.
“But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offense was allegedly committed.”
He insisted that there was no need for the FHC to retain the remaining 7 counts, and therefore urged the panel to take over the charges and strike them out.
The senior lawyer 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 Federal Government’s lawyer, Mr. David Kaswe asked the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
Emmanuel Ukoh
