Appeal Court Discharges Kanu of  Terrorism Charges

*Says trial court lacks jurisdiction due to faulty extradition process  Malami: IPOB leader not acquitted

Alex Enumah in Abuja and David-Chyddy Eleke in Awka

The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, yesterday, discharged leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, of the 15-count terrorism charges brought against him by the federal government.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, faulted the process through which Kanu was brought before the Federal High Court to answer to a 15-count terrorism charges.

The news of Kanu’s discharge caused wild jubilation in Awka, the Anambra State capital, as his supporters celebrated the ruling.
But Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, reacting to the judgement of the Court of Appeal, clarified that the detained IPOB leader was only discharged and not acquitted by the court
Acquittal is a verdict by the judge that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with, while discharge means releasing a person from custody or allegation due to insufficient grounds to proceed with the case.

The appeal court ruled that the arrest, abduction and subsequent arraignment of Kanu before a Federal High Court violated international convention on terrorism and, thus, robbed any court of law in Nigeria necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Justice Adedotun Adefope-Okijie, who read the judgement of the three-man panel, noted that there was nowhere the federal government showed it complied with the procedures for the extradition of the IPOB leader from Kenya last year.

The appellate court listed the conditions, according to the Organisation of Africa Unity (OAU), which a state must meet to include a formal application for extradition to the host country, permission from court, and statement of the alleged offences in connection with the extradition request amongst others.
The court explained that the requirements were aimed at ensuring that people were only extradited after full conviction of alleged committal of an offence and not for any other purpose.

She held that Nigeria must learn to play by the rules and that the courts owed the country and people a duty to ensure that the executive abided by the law at all times particularly, when the country was a signatory to such laws.
While noting that the court might not have the powers to dictate to the executive,  Adefope-Okijie saidit could prevent the executive from abusing the law, adding that courts should not be shy to always call the executive to order.

The appellate court, in its judgement, further held that the trial court ought to have evaluated the circumstances under which Kanu was brought into the country to continue his trial.
The three-man panel said the issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellant was one that was critical to the case, which the court ought to have resolved first.
While stating that the issue of jurisdiction was properly raised before the trial court, Adefope-Okijie observed that the trial court turned a blind eye to it.
She stated, “The lower court must pronounce properly on all issues presented before it. The trial court ought to have made findings on the issue raised regarding the extradition.”

The judge added that the lower court had no jurisdiction to try the respondent in the retained charges.
“No court can try him going by the circumstances of the extraordinary rendition,” the court held.
According to the judgement, the federal government violated international convention on terrorism, which it was a signatory to, when it illegally arrested Kanu in Kenya and extraordinarily brought him to Nigeria for trial.
The appellate court held that the warrant of arrest issued against Kanu was not enough reason or excuse for the government to violate international convention and charters.

Having resolved issue one in favour of the appellant, which deals with jurisdiction, the appeal court said the order of Justice Binta Nyako, which ordered the appellant to answer to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 was set aside, terminated and dismissed.
“Appellant is accordingly discharged,” the appellate court held.
Kanu had faulted the order of Nyako of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which had in April this year ordered him to respond to seven out of the 15-count terrorism charge against him.

Nyako had while ruling in Kanu’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the court as well as the competence of the charge struck out eight of the charges for being incompetent and lacking merit.
In arguing the appeal, Kanu’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, told the three-man panel that Kanu was first arraigned on December 23,2015, and granted bail on April 25, 2017.

Ozekhome explained that agents of the federal government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code-named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s home town in September 2017, which forced him to escape out of the country, to Israel, then London.
The senior advocate recalled that on June 27, 2021, “The federal government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria ‘in most cruel and inhuman manner’”.

Ozekhome submitted that going by section 15 of the Extradition Act, “Kanu is not supposed to be charged without the approval of Kenyan government.
In addition, Ozekhome 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 therefore, contended that by section 45 (a) of the Federal High Court Act, with regard to criminal charge, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.
He insisted that there was no need for the Federal High Court to retain the remaining seven 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 had not furnished the court with any prima facie case against the appellant for which he is being charged.
In his reacting, the federal government’s lawyer, Mr David Kaswe, asked the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking merit.
But the court today agreed that Kanu’s extradition was illegal and as such, robbed any court necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Jubilation in Awka

There was jubilation in Awka, the Anambra State capital, over news of Nnamdi Kanu’s discharge of terrorism charges.
At Amawbia and UNIZIK junction in Awka, THISDAY noticed wild jubilation among some residents of the area over the news of the discharge of the IPOB leader.
In a motor park at UNIZIK junction, Awka, some operators and drivers were seen jubilating and celebrating with alcoholic beverages.

One of the men in the area, who was identified by his nickname Oga Boss, was heard saying, “This is the best news of the year. This Nnamdi Kanu has totally rubbished Nigerian government. He is really teaching them a lesson. All the things he said about Nigeria have come to pass; he has proven that he knows what he is doing.
“Upon all the things the Nigerian government has done to keep him trapped, he has been defeating them in all of them. May be now we can have peace in Igbo land.”

But in his reaction to the appeal court judgement, Malami stated that the detained IPOB leader was only discharged and not acquitted by the court, hence the federal government could still explore other options to prosecute him.
In a statement by his media aide, Dr Umar Gwandu, the minister said following the judgement, “The appropriate legal options before the authorities will be exploited and communicated accordingly to the public.”

He noted that the decision handed down by the Court of Appeal was on a single issue that borders on rendition. The AGF said, “Other issues that predates rendition on the basis of which Kanu jumped bail remain valid issues for judicial determination.”
He added, “The federal government will consider all available options open to us on the judgement on rendition while pursuing determination of pre-rendition issues.”