Nnamdi Kanu Accepts Supreme Court Judgement Blocking His Release From DSS Custody –IPOB Leader’s Lawyer, Ejiofor

    35
    0

    Saharareporters.com

    The Supreme Court, however, held that the Nigerian government recklessly and unlawfully renditioned Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria. It, however, held that such an unlawful act would not strip any court of its power to proceed with the trial.

    The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has said that the Supreme Court of Nigeria declared his extraordinary rendition from Kenya, revocation of his bail by the Nigerian government and invasion of his home by the security personnel as unlawful but repealed Nigerian constitution by upholding his continued detention.

     

    The IPOB leader said this on Tuesday while reacting to the Supreme Court’s judgment on his appeal against his continued detention by the Nigerian government despite the judgment of the Court of Appeal which discharged and acquitted him and ordered his unconditional release from the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).

     

    SaharaReporters on Friday reported that the apex court in a judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim but written by Justice Garba Lawal nullified the judgment of the Court of Appeal that ordered Kanu’s release and asked the trial court to continue with the case.

     

    The Supreme Court, however, held that the Nigerian government recklessly and unlawfully renditioned Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria. It, however, held that such an unlawful act would not strip any court of its power to proceed with the trial.

     

    But reacting to the Supreme Court judgment when his legal team visited him on Tuesday, Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who gave an update on Kanu’s reaction said that the IPOB leader questioned whether the apex court effectively repealed constitutional provisions cited before it on his release.

     

    Ejiofor said, “The eventual verdict of the Supreme Court was conveyed to Nnamdi Kanu and he expressed reservations on the outcome.

     

    “However, Kanu elected to accept this outcome because of the finality of the Supreme Court decisions and not because they are infallible, but because they are infallible for the fact that the Supreme Court is the final court in the land.

     

    “Nevertheless, in accepting this verdict, Onyendu specifically requested that the following compelling questions be put out publicly to the discerning members of the public, who are keenly following the trajectory of this case: to wit:

     

    “Did the decision of the Supreme Court which substantially sanctioned the Federal Government’s illegal act of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s abduction and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, effectively repeal the following Nigerian laws which were all cited in our brief before the Supreme Court?”

     

    According to Ejiofor, Kanu’s legal team cited before the Supreme Court that Section 15 of the Extradition Act Cap E25 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, provides as follows:

     

    “Where, in accordance with the law of any country within the Commonwealth or in pursuance of an extradition agreement between Nigeria and another Country (whether within the Commonwealth or not), any person accused of or unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Nigeria is surrendered to Nigeria by the country in question, then, so long as he has not had a reasonable opportunity to returning to that country, that person shall not be detained (whether under this Act or otherwise), tried or otherwise dealt with in Nigeria for or in respect of an offence committed by him before his surrender to Nigeria other than –

     

    “a) The offence for which he was surrendered or any lesser offence which may be proved by the facts on which his surrender was granted; or

     

    “b) Any other offence (being one corresponding to an offence described in section 20 of this Act) of the same nature as the offence for which he was surrendered.

     

    “Provided that a person falling within this section shall not be detained or tried for an offence by virtue of paragraph (b) of this section without the prior consent of the country surrendering him.”

     

    He stated that Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, which provides as follows:

     

    “A non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter, may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.”

     

    Ejiofor said, “The above laws, for the avoidance of any doubt, are all Nigerian laws on extradition and extraordinary rendition of citizens from foreign lands.

     

    “Other international Instruments and Conventions to which Nigeria is a state party and bound by, which made similar provisions include: The OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism; Principles and Guidelines on Human and Peoples’ Right while Countering Terrorism in Africa; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

     

    According to Ejiofor, Kanu said, “Public perspective/positions on the possible implication of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 15th December 2023, on the above laws, will further demonstrate the grave prejudice Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has suffered in the hands of the Federal Government of Nigeria.”

     

    Kanu encouraged his supporters to remain focused, keep their eyes on the ball and continue to conduct themselves peacefully.

    QUICK SHARE:

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here