Nnamdi Kanu: Fixes October 27 For Judgement

Nnamdi Kanu: Fixes October 27 For Judgement

The Federal Ministry of Justice’s Simon Enoch, who represents the Federal Government, asked the court to reject the lawsuit on the grounds that it is an abuse of the legal system in accepting his written addresses.

He asserted that the Abia State High Court had already determined the case and that Nnamdi Kanu had already violated his bail conditions prior to his re-arrest in Kenya.

However, Kanu’s attorney quickly objected, reminding the court that the case resolved by the Abia High Court was distinct from the present lawsuit since the former primarily focused on the military assault of Kanu’s home in 2017 and was decided in his favor.

Kanu’s attorney said that the ongoing lawsuit related to Kanu’s wrongful transfer from Kenya to Nigeria by Federal Government officials without a warrant.

He insisted that the Federal Government should be made to produce the legal instrument or authority upon which the “abduction or extraordinary rendition of Kanu was based”.

“My client remains an unlawfully expelled individual, and cannot be subjected to any trial because he was unlawfully renditioned”, Kanu’s lawyer argued.

He also reminded the court that Kanu had already been ordered unconditionally released by the Nigerian authorities and given compensation for the breach of his basic human rights by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Kanu’s health was deteriorating, and Ejimakor also told the court that he wanted to see his personal doctor right away.

He maintains that Kanu must be alive before he can stand trial.

Justice Evelyn Anyadike, the presiding judge, set the date for the verdict to be delivered on the case as October 27 after hearing the arguments and submissions of both Counsels.

Later in an interview with newsmen, Kanu’s lawyer said that the IPOB Leader would first be released from detention and be returned to Kenya or Britain where he was residing before the Federal Government would apply for his extradition.

He argued that in law, “you cannot detain somebody you don’t have the authority to arrest”.

Kanu’s attorney compared the rendition of his client to the 1984 effort by the Federal Government of Nigeria to kidnap Alhaji Umaru Dikko from Britain, which resulted in the arrest and prosecution of those responsible and the punishment of Nigeria by the United Kingdom.

In addition, he said that Kanu’s call for a Biafra referendum was not illegal because plebiscites led to the loss of parts of Eastern Nigeria to Cameroon and Southern Cameroon to Nigeria, respectively.

However, Ejimakor expressed optimism that his client would receive justice in court, claiming that his case is very well-established.

Patrick Agazie, Ifeyinwa Nworgu, Tochukwu Arugbuonye, Franklin Amandi, Ohaeto Uwazie, and Mandela Umegborogu were a few of Kanu’s legal team members present at the court hearing.

Kanu’s younger brother, other family members, Jewish Rabbis, and numerous supporters were also sighted at the court.

Below are some of the reliefs being sought by Kanu:
“1, A DECLARATION that the arrest of the Applicant in Kenya by the Respondents’ agents without due process of law is arbitrary, and the Respondents’ enforced disappearance of the Applicant for eight (8) days and their refusal to produce the Applicant before a Kenyan Court for the purpose of Applicant’s extradition are illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amount to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against arbitrary arrest, to his personal liberty and to fair hearing as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.

“2, A DECLARATION that the detention of the Applicant in a non-official secret facility in Kenya and the torture of the Applicant in Kenya by the Respondents’ agents is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amount to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against unlawful detention, torture and fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter).

“3, A DECLARATION that pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Charter, the expulsion (or extraordinary rendition) of the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria by the Respondents without a decision taken in accordance with the law of Kenya is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing and not to be expelled from a State Party to the Charter except by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.

“4, A DECLARATION that any criminal prosecution of the Applicant the purpose of which the Respondents unlawfully expelled the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, and amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right to a fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.

“5, AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining and prohibiting the Respondents from taking any further step in any criminal prosecution of the Applicant enabled by the said unlawful expulsion of the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria.

“6, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the the Respondents to forthwith restitute or otherwise restore the Applicant to his liberty, same being his state of being as of 19th June, 2021; and to thereupon repatriate the Applicant to his country of lawful domicile (to wit: the United Kingdom) to await the outcome of any formal request the Respondents may file before the competent authorities in Britain for the lawful extradition of the Applicant to Nigeria.

“7, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the Respondents to issue an official Letter of Apology to the Applicant for the infringement of his fundamental rights; and publication of said Letter of Apology in three (3) national dailies.

“8, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the Respondents to pay the sum of N25,000,000,000.00 (Twenty-Five Billion Naira) to the Applicant, being monetary damages claimed by the Applicant against the Respondents jointly and severally for the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, property and other damages suffered by the Applicant as a result of the infringements of Applicant’s fundamental rights by the Respondents.”