Breaking: Appeal Court Acquits Nnamdi Kanu, Strikes Out FG’s Charge
On Thursday, the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed the terrorism allegation that the Federal Government had brought against Nnamdi Kanu, the arrested leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB.
It cleared him of the seven-count indictment against him that was pending before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In a ruling by a three-person panel chaired by Justice Jummai Hanatu, the appellate court declared that it was satisfied that the FG had flagrantly broken the law when it extradited Kanu from Kenya to the country to continue his trial.
It determined that the Appellant’s fundamental human rights had been violated and that such an extraordinary rendition, carried out without following due legal procedure, was a flagrant violation of all international treaties, protocols, and guidelines to which Nigeria is a signatory.
The appellate court noted that FG has not answered the claim that the IPOB leader was in Kenya when he was kidnapped and returned to Nigeria without going through the extradition process.
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 held, adding that the onus was on FG to prove the legality of the Appellant’s arrest and return from Kenya.
Furthermore, the court cited Nigeria’s ratification of the OAU Convention on April 28, 2022, as well as the Charter of Human and Peoples Rights, which it claimed outlined the procedures for transferring wanted individuals between nations.
It was decided that any extradition request had to be made in writing and include a declaration outlining the crimes for which the person was sought.
The appellate court held that FG’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 Appellate court held, even as it accused FG of engaging in “serious abuse of power”.
Nevertheless, the appellate court said it would be pre-judicial for it to make an order on the proscription of IPOB since the issue is still on appeal.
It held that the proscription order by the lower court would subsist until it is set-aside.
