The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja Thursday discharged leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu of terrorism charges filed against him by the federal government.
The verdict was given by a three-man panel led by Justice Jummai Hannatu of Gombe Division.
In his appeal: CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, Kanu prayed the appellate court to quash the remaining seven-count terrorism-related charges filed against him.
Journey to arrest/trial
The IPOB leader was arrested by security operatives on 14th October, 2015, on an11-count charge bordering on treasonable felony, illegal possession of firearms, and improper importation of goods.
The case, which lasted for years, had the prosecution amending the charges about five times.
But upon given bail by the Federal High Court Abuja, Kanu fled the country following the military invasion of his home country in Abia state.
He was later to be rearrested in Kenya July last year and extradited to Nigeria to face trial.
Consequent upon his arrest, he was brought for trial before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja.
And on the 8th of April, 2022, the lower court struck out 8 out of the amended 15 counts of terrorism-related charges brought against Kanu by the federal government for being repetitive.
But the trial judge retained counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 13, upon which he was pronounced guilty.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Kanu’s lead counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), headed for the appellate court and sought a vacation order against the entire case as heard at the lower court.
He had argued that his client cannot be tried on an offence where the place it was allegedly committed was not stated by the federal government.
The silk prayed the appellate court to determine whether the extraordinary rendition of Kanu without any form of a court hearing in Kenya allows him to be tried in Nigeria on any charge.
But the prosecution counsel, D. Kaswe, had urged the court of appeal to dismiss the prayers for lacking in merit, saying the IPOB leader was returned to Nigeria following due process of law.
Court of Appeal
Ruling on the matter, Thursday, the appeal panel faulted the lower court for going ahead to hear the matter even when it(FHC) had held that the struck-out charges did not disclose any offence and were repetitive.
The panel ruled that once jurisdiction is raised, such must be determined before going through the gamut of the case as this could affect entire case.
“It is clear that where a court lacks jurisdiction to determine a matter, every other thing it does will amount to a nullity,” the panel said.
They further noted that there was no specific response from the federal government on where Kanu was extradited, saying the federal government was “silent” on the allegation that Kanu was abducted from Kenya.
“I thus agree with Ozekhome,” the panel said, adding that the government’s refusal to state where Kanu was extradited means it is “deemed conceded by the federal government.”
Relying on the United Nations Convention, it said “an Extradition request shall be in writing and accompanied by a warrant of arrest to the host territory where a suspect is domiciled.
“It is clear that the respondent having removed Kanu from a country without trial constitutes a fundamental violation of his right.”
The panel further declared that Kanu can only be returned from another country after being subjected to judicial process in the host territory.
The justices similarly faulted the lower court, saying “the warrant of arrest only applies within Nigeria but extraordinary rendition without formal trial in a transferring country is an error.
“There is a duty of this country to conform with international laws and legal framework.”
It therefore ruled that Kanu’s extradition by the federal government was a clear violation of international laws which it was duty bound to obey as a signatory to UN Convention.
To this end, it said since law enforcement cannot show how and where Kanu was extradited,” the whole proceeding is tainted.”
“The court must not shy away from calling the executive to order when it operates in executive recklessness,” the court further ruled.
In its judgment, the appellate court held that the lower court failed to look at the facts of Nnamdi Kanu’s extradition.
“I hold that the respondent is restrained from holding Kanu in detention. The lower court has no jurisdiction to try Kanu on the remaining charges,” the court ruled.
They held that the order proscribing IPOB by the lower court stands until vacated by the Supreme Court.
“The abduction and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria is in flagrant violation of the OAU convention and protocol on extradition.
“Kanu’s extradition from Kenya to Nigeria to stand trial was illegal and therefore, his trial for terrorism cannot stand,” the panel held further.
“This appeal succeeds, the decision of Justice Nyako retaining remaining charges are set aside and the defendant is discharged,” the court finally ruled.
