The recent judgment and ‘controversial’ transfer of Appeal Court judges who gave the October 13 judgment that discharged the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has continued to generate ripples and buzz, KEHINDE OSASONA writes.
World over, seekers of justice have always held on to the saying that the ‘court is the last hope of the common man.’ Basking in the euphoria of the times, members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and their followers heaved a sigh of relief when a panel of the Appeal Court judges acquitted and discharged IPOB Leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
However, they had another shock a few days after when the same judgment was reversed by the same appellate court.
One of the lawyers representing the separatist leader, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), had told journalists that the court has upheld its ruling of October 13, which set Kanu free.
Consequently, the Nigerian government had sought a stay of execution on the ruling of the Court of Appeal acquitting and discharging Kanu.
The embattled IPOB leaders has been in custody since June 2021 when he was arrested in Kenya and brought to Nigeria to face prosecution for leading an outlawed organisation and clamouring for the Republic of Biafra.
While delivering the judgment, a three-man panel of justices; Justice Jummai Hanatu Sankey, Oludotun Adetope-Okojie, and Ebiowei Tobi, held that such an extraordinary rendition of Kanu was a “serious abuse of power.”
The court went ahead to quash the 15-count terrorism charge the Federal Government preferred against the IPOB leader.
In its verdicts, the court held further that the extradition was done without adherence to due process of the law, stating that it was a gross violation of all international conventions, treaties, protocols and guidelines that Nigeria was a signatory to, as well as a breach of the appellant’s fundamental human rights.
The government, according to the pronouncement, failed to refute the allegation that the IPOB leader was in Kenya and that he was abducted and brought back to Nigeria without adhering to extradition processes.
For concerned Nigerians and IPOB sympathisers, the verdict if carried out as ordered by the court would have gone a long way in not only assuaging feelings but could also help in reducing endless agitation, unrest and spate of insecurity plaguing the people in the South-eastern part of the country who were already celebrating openly on hearing that the court had discharged Kanu.
“The Nigerian government’s 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 court ruled.
However, barely five days after the judgment was delivered, the three appellate court justices were transferred to various divisions of the court across the country, a development which has not only triggered discussion but has caused suspicions.
The trio of Justice Jummai Hanatu Sankey, Oludotun
Adetope-Okojie and Ebiowei Tobi were transferred to Gombe, Awka and Owerri divisions respectively, in a memo dated October 17, 2022, which was signed by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem.
The president of the court, who confirmed the new posting in a statement, stated that it was with immediate effect as they were expected to report to their new stations by October 21.
Although the judges have since resumed at their new stations, the court of public opinion was reading meanings into the sudden transfer and it has also triggered series of debates amongst stakeholders in the judiciary, the public and concerned citizens.
‘Posting mere routine’
While justifying the judge’s posting in a statement, the Court of Appeal headquarters in Abuja clarified that the transfer of its 21 Justices, including the three justices in question, to various divisions in the country had nothing to do with the judgment of the court that discharged and quashed the terrorism charges against the IPOB leader.
The court insisted, contrary to a report in a section of the media, that the posting of 21 out of its 81 justices were a routine exercise aimed at reinvigorating the justice delivery of the Court.
According to the Chief Registrar of the Court, Malam Umar Mohammed Bangari, only one justice out of the three that handled Kanu’s matter was affected by the postings.
The statement read in part, “The attention of the Court of Appeal has been drawn to a publication in the media on Monday October 24, 2022 with the caption, “Nnamdi Kanu: 3 Justices on Appeal Court Panel Transferred.”
“The publication in question conveyed the innuendo to the effect that the recent postings of Justices of the Court of Appeal were in connection with or in response to the judgment of the Court of October 13, 2022 in Nnamdi Kanu Versus the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“We wish to state categorically that the general postings of the Justices of the Court of Appeal under reference were routine and aimed at reinvigorating the justice delivery system of the Court.
“In fact, 21 out of 81 Justices including six presiding justices of the court were affected by the general postings.
“It is therefore incorrect to insinuate that the Honourable Justices who delivered the judgment in the Nnamdi Kanu appeal were the targets of the routine posting exercise.
“A few minutes of inquiry by the media could have clarified the fact. We appeal to the media to exercise restraint and circumspection in reporting matters pertaining to the court and its operations.
“The Court of Appeal has an open door policy of providing easy access to the media to make inquiries and seek clarification on any matters of interest to the media for the benefit of the general public.”
FG’s appeal and the twist
As the argument raged, apparently dissatisfied with the appellate court’s pronouncement, the federal government through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice sought a stay of execution on the ruling of the Court of Appeal acquitting and discharging Kanu.
In the seven grounds appeal, the federal government asked the court to stay the execution of the October 13 judgment which voided the extraordinary rendition of Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria.
Among other things, the government contended that the appellate court panel erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it relied on the manner by which Kanu was renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria after he jumped bail in 2017, to quash the charges against him.
It further insisted that the appeal court acted in error by striking out the charge against the IPOB leader on the premise that the trial judge no longer had the jurisdiction to handle the matter.
It therefore asked the Supreme Court to, in the interim; suspend the execution of the Court of Appeal verdict, pending the hearing and determination of its appeal.
In the notice of appeal dated October 18, 2022, the appellant averred that the Appeal Court erred in law when it held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try Kanu because of “the extraordinary rendition of the respondent.”
It stated, “There was no evidence led by the respondent before the court of the first instance and indeed before the court below to show how he was allegedly abducted and rendered to Nigeria as required by Section 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011 since he alleged that he was abducted without following due process of law.”
Is govt justified to hold?
Despite a pronouncements by another a High Court, asking the federal government to return the IPOB leader to Kenya and pay him N500 million as compensation, the AGF has said Kanu may not be released due to several factors.
The minister said the rendition of separatists’ leader could not be used as the only basis to free him of other offences allegedly committed by him against the federal government of Nigeria.
He explained that the government was holding on to Kanu on account of four major issues, which were preceded by the rendition matter for which the court cleared him.
Malami said: “To release or not to release Nnamdi Kanu is a function of law and the rule of law for that matter.
“In arriving at a decision whether to release or not release, is one; you look at the rule of law, two; you look at the public and the national interest, three; you look at the security situation, four; you look at international diplomacy.
While adopting an application seeking the stay of execution of the October 13, 2022 judgment before the court, the federal government had through its Counsel, David Kaswe, made a declaration that Kanu was a flight risk and a threat to national security.
The question many are asking is whether the government was justified to continue holding the IPOB leader despite subsisting court order and judgement.
Lawyers react
Reacting to the development, an Abuja based lawyer, Napoleon Otache, argued that under the Nigerian law, an accused person, irrespective of the level of accusation, was presumed innocent and the onus of proving otherwise lay on the prosecution who levelled the accusation.
He said, “I may not be privy to the full fact upon which the judges based their decisions, but declaring that Kanu is a flight risk is like passing judgment before trial.
“How was Nnamdi Kanu brought to the country? The flight risk pronunciation for me is more of interest than justice or better still oppressive action of the State which should be discouraged, as it amounts to extra-judicial act,”
Taking a different posture, however, another Abuja based lawyer, Olatunji Salawu, said it was not correct that the Court of Appeal reversed itself!
According to him, what the Court did was to grant the federal government’s application for stay of execution of its earlier order, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal filed at the Supreme Court.
“There were no irregularities concerning that, as it was in line with lawful procedures of appeal,” he stated.
