Court of Appeal Acquits and Discharges Nnamdi Kanu, But Will He Be Released?

On Thursday, the Abuja division of the Appeal Court discharged and acquitted Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a separatist group proscribed by the federal government of Nigeria.

In the landmark ruling that could probably put an end to his detention, the Court of Appeal faulted the trial court — declaring Kanu’s arrest illegal, which makes the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to try him null and void.

Chastising the trial court, the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal said the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain Kanu’s case owing to how he was brought back to the country. The court said Kanu’s abduction and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria is a flagrant violation of the OAU convention and protocol on extradition.

The court further held that the trial judge was in grave error to have breached the right to fair hearing of Kanu

“The African Charter on Human and People’s rights are part of the laws of Nigeria and courts must abide by the laws without pandering to the aim of the Executive,” the court said.

Kanu, who is a dual citizen of Nigeria and Britain, is facing 15 count charges bordering on treasonable felony, terrorism and inciting his followers, who are pushing for the actualization of the defunct sovereign state of Biafra, to violence.

But in its judgment, the court held that the 15-count charge leveled against Kanu lack merit because it did not disclose the place, date, time and nature of the offences he allegedly committed before he was abducted and unlawfully extradited to Nigeria in clear violation of international treaties.

Further, the court ruled that the federal government, in its case filing, did not mention where the accused was arrested. It added that the act of abduction and extraordinary rendition of Kanu from Kenya without due process is a violation of his right.

The Court of Appeal further reprimanded the lower court for not evaluating the manner in which the accused was brought before it, before assuming jurisdiction to try him.

“The lower court having failed to address the preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction particularly the issue of abduction and extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria, the lower court failed to take cognizance of the fact that a warrant of arrest can only be executed anywhere within Nigeria,” the court said.

However, while the Court of Appeal ruling has been praised by rights activists and supporters of Kanu, the question remains if the federal government will obey the judgment. President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration is notorious of flouting court orders; a trajectory many fear would likely play out in this case.

To confirm their fear, the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has issued a statement, claiming that the Court of Appeal’s judgment does not acquit Kanu.

In the statement signed by his spokesperson, Dr. Umar Jibril Gwandu, Malami said the Federal Government will explore all available options to further pursue the case.

“The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has received the news of the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the trial of Nnamdi Kanu,” the statement said. “For the avoidance of doubt and by the verdict of the Court, Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted.

“Consequently, the appropriate legal options before the authorities will be exploited and communicated accordingly to the public.

“The decision handed down by the court of appeal was on a single issue that borders on rendition.

“Let it be made clear to the general public that other issues that predates rendition on the basis of which Kanu jumped bail remain valid issues for judicial determination.

“The Federal Government will consider all available options open to us on the judgment on rendition while pursuing determination of pre-rendition issues,” he said.

Kanu’s incarceration is highly tied to the insecurity ravaging Nigeria’s Southeast, and it is strongly believed that his release will mitigate it. While there is concern about the timing of the court’s ruling as it’s five months close to the 2023 general elections, which IPOB is seeking to stop the Southeast from participating in, many referencing the Attorney General’s statement, believe that Kanu will not be released.

Lawyers disagree with Malami

Weighing in on the matter, lawyers have faulted Malami’s statement; with some saying that it only shows that he has poor understanding of the law.

“If Malami SAN is of the view that Kanu was discharged and not acquitted, he should effect what the ordinary meaning of discharge conveys by releasing Kanu from legal confinement,” a legal practitioner, Abdul Mahmud wrote.

Also, counsel to Kanu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome, said the judgment only means that his client should be immediately released. He said on Thursday in an interview with Channels TV News At 10, that Kanu should be released for peace to reign in the country.

“What it (the ruling) means is that Nnamdi Kanu was discharged today. That means he is a free man.

“And he should be allowed to go home tomorrow by the time we get a certified true copy of the judgment, we serve it to the Office of the Attorney-General and the DSS to allow Nnamdi Kanu go. Let my people go,” he said.

Eric Ejiofor, another counsel to Kanu said the order made by the Learned Justices of the court of Appeal is sacrosanct and must be obeyed immediately without further ado.

“Now, for the avoidance of doubt, the Federal Government has no OPTIONS. It has ONLY one option, namely, to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. And the exercise of this later option shall not constitute a bar to immediate compliance with the order of the Court of Appeal which directed for immediate and unconditional release of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” he said.