Image
October 14, 2022
Malami, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had contended that Kanu was merely discharged by the appellate court and not acquitted.
The lawyers representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu have faulted the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, on the judgment of the Appeal Court that quashed the terrorism charges preferred against the separatist leader.
Malami, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had contended that Kanu was merely discharged by the appellate court and not acquitted.
He said in a statement released through his Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations Officer, Dr Umar Jibrilu Gwandu, that "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 border on rendition.
“Let it be made clear to the general public that other issues that predate rendition based on 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 the determination of pre-rendition issues," he added.
But in separate reactions, Kanu's lawyers, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Aloy Ejimakor, described the interpretation of the federal government on the judgment as wrong and faulty.
Ozekhome, who spoke while featuring on Channels TV programme, said by the judgment of the Appeal Court, his client stand discharged and acquitted, adding that the remaining counts, which the Federal High Court, Abuja, retained were set aside.
He said “Nnamdi Kanu was set free and discharged by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court has said such a discharge amounts to discharge and acquittal."
He urged the government to see the appellate court’s decision as being good for the country, adding that any move against the decision will amount to persecution.
“My take on it is that it will amount to persecution and no longer prosecution," he said, adding that he was still ready for any legal confrontation from Federal Government’s lawyers.
Ozekhome hinted that when he gets the Certified True Copies of the judgement, he will serve it on the AGF and the Department of State Services, and ask for his release by Friday (today).
On his part, Ejimakor described the position of AGF on the judgment as flatly wrong and "perverse to boot".
Ejimakor in a statement made available to SaharaReporters, said "If the Federal Government refuses or stalls on releasing Kanu solely because it desires to levy further or new charges, it will amount to a burgeoning holding charge which is impermissible in our jurisprudence."
He argued that in the face of the Appeal Court judgment, no new charges can stick against Kanu because, "in the present circumstance, the extraordinary rendition is an abiding factor that has created a permanent barrier to his prosecution”.
"Keep in mind that the extant trial of Kanu could never have proceeded had he not been illegally renditioned. So, it is not legally possible to lose jurisdiction in the extant charges and at once obtain jurisdiction in the next round of charges," he added.
Ejimakor maintained that the judgment of the Court of Appeal has therefore grandfathered a continuing lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction that will, in the interim, be very hard to overcome.
"Thus, before the levying of any new charges can have a toga of legality or chances of conferring prosecutorial jurisdiction, Kanu has to be released first. Anything to the contrary will be nugatory."
SaharaReporters had reported that a three-man panel of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Thursday, quashed the terrorism charges the Federal Government brought against Kanu.
The court also declared his extraordinary rendition unlawful. It held that the rendition, without adherence to due process of the law, was a gross violation of all international conventions, protocols and guidelines that Nigeria is a signatory to and a breach of the Appellant’s fundamental human rights.