A/Court discharges, acquits Nnamdi Kanu of terrorism, treason charges
The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday discharged and acquitted Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of a self-determination group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) .
Kanu has been standing trial for terrorism and treasonable felony charges filed against him by the Federal Government.
Delivering judgment, the appellate court’s panel of three justices led by Justice Oludotun Adebola held that Kanu’s forceful abduction and deportation from Kenya to Nigeria to stand trial was illegal and an infringement of his fundamental rights.
The court also held that the Nigerian government breached all local and international laws in the forceful tradition of Kanu to Nigeria, which rendered all the charges preferred against him incompetent and unlawful.
Justice Adebola held that the failure of Nigeria to follow due process by way of Extradition was fatal to the charges against Kanu and therefore voided and set aside all the charges against him.
Kanu’s trial began after he was abducted from Kenya by federal government agencies in July 2020.
The federal government had filed 15 charges against him, including terrorism and treasonable felony.
The charges were later amended and slashed down to 7 as the trial commenced.
But Kanu, had faulted the trial court’s order that he should respond to seven out of the 15 count terrorism charge against him and had approached the Appeal Court to set aside the order.
Mike Ozekhome, (SAN) Kanu’s lawyer, while arguing the appeal, told the three-member panel that Kanu was first arraigned on December 23, 2015, and granted bail on April 25, 2017.
He further explained that agents of the federal government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code-named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s hometown in September 2017, which forced him to escape from the country, to Israel, before relocating to London.
He recalled that on June 27, 2021, the federal government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria in a cruelest and inhuman manner”.
Ozekhome said, “On 29 June 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the federal government, where he was rearraigned.
“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 April 8, 2022, struck out eight counts.
“Our humble submission is that the remaining seven 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 five-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 seven 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 one, two, three, four, five, and eight which the Federal High Court retained, were offences allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria.
“These allegations of rendition were never denied by the federal government and you cannot sustain the charge when you extradited the appellant without the approval of Kenyan authority.
In addition, Ozekhome argued that when charging for an offence, “you must mention the particulars and location where the offence was committed.
“But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offence was allegedly committed,” he argued.
Ozekhome contended that by Section 45 (a) of the Federal High Court Act, with regard to criminal charges, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.
More so, “Sections 195 and 196 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), state that a charge must have the date, time, location, etc.
He insisted that there was no need for the trial judge to retain the remaining 7 counts.
Kanu!s counsel had, therefore, urged the Appeal Court to strike out the charges.
