Nnamdi Kanu a security risk, freedom will harm nation – FG

The Court of Appeal in Abuja Monday reserved judgment in an application by the federal government seeking a stay of execution of the judgement that ordered the release of leader of the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

Justice Haruna Tsanami who presided over the hearing of the application announced that a date for delivery of judgment would be communicated to the parties when ready.

Following this, the federal government said it was studying the judgement, contending that Kanu was discharged but not acquitted and later said it would appeal the judgement.

The earlier  judgement

In its earlier judgement some days back, the court of appeal had freed Kanu, noting that the federal 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 extradition proceeding.

It held that FG was “ominously silent on the issue” which it described as very pivotal in determining whether the trial court would still have the jurisdiction to continue with the criminal proceeding before it.

“In law, that is a costly failure and such failure is an admittance by the respondent. Where a party fails to controvert a deposition by an opponent, the issue not contested is deemed conceded.”

The court ruled that the onus was on the federal government to prove the legality of the appellant’s arrest and return from Kenya.

Fresh legal battle

But while arguing the application for a stay of execution, Monday,  the federal government told the appellate court that the Biafra nation agitator is a huge threat to national security and must be kept in detention to have a relative peace.

Besides, the government asserted that Kanu is a flight risk and would escape out of the country if the judgement which ordered his release was not stayed.

In a motion for stay of execution of the October 13 judgement delivered in favour of Kanu, the federal government insisted that the Biafran leader would throw the nation’s security into jeopardy and prejudice the public and private economic activities.

While arguing the motion, counsel to the federal government, Mr David Kaswe, informed the appellate court that Kanu had earlier demonstrated to be a flight risk by  jumping out of the country when granted bail in the terrorism charges against him at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Kaswe insisted that it’s in the interest of justice and the need to have relative peace in the South-east and the whole Nigeria that Kanu be made to remain in detention pending the resolution of an appeal already filed at the Supreme Court.

“My Lords, our concerns, the concern of the federal government is the threat the release of Kanu poses to the security of this country and its political, social and economic activities. We will not be able to lay hands upon him if he is allowed out of detention and finds his way out of the country,” submitted the prosecution counsel.

He therefore prayed the court to stay the execution of the court judgment to enable Kanu remain in custody pending when Supreme Court would finally determine the pending appeal.

Ozekhome kicks

However, lead counsel to Kanu, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) dismissed the claim that Kanu jumped bail in his trial at the lower court.

Ozekhome claimed that the military unjustly invaded Kanu’s ancestral home and that it took God’s grace for his client to escape death.

The senior lawyer informed the court that the federal government was in contempt of court by not obeying the October 13 judgment and as such, has no moral and legal rights to make the request from the same court.

Contrary to the federal government’s claim, Ozekhome said it is only the release of his client that would ensure peace and tranquility not only in the South-east but the entire country.

“My Lord, the action of the Federal Government in respect of Nnamdi Kanu is an insult, a slap in the face to this court. It is also an invitation to anarchy and I humbly urge this Court to dismiss the application for lacking in merit,” he argued.

After taking arguments from both counsels, Justice Tsanami said counsels would be communicated when the judgement is ready.