The Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Tuesday, reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the detained self acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
In the appeal, Kanu is seeking the dismissal of the remaining 7-count charge filed against him by the Federal Government.
The panel led by Justice Hanatu Jumai Sankey said it will communicate the date for judgment to the parties.
When the appeal came up for hearing on Tuesday, Kanu’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), informed the three-man panel of the appellate court that the appeal was predicated on a notice of appeal dated April 29, 2022, while the brief of argument was dated June 20, 2022.
He said the respondent filed its reply brief of argument dated July 29, but filed on August 3.
The appellant filed a reply brief on August 25, 2022 but deemed consequential filed on September 13.
Ozekhome adopted his processes and urged the panel to grant the appeal as “one of substance and merit”.
By way of adumbration, Ozekhome told the Court of Appeal that the appellant was first arraigned on December 23, 2015, and granted bail on April 25, 2017.
He informed the court that agents of the Federal Government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code-named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s home town in September 2017, which forced him to escape out of the country, to Israel, then London.
The senior advocate recalled that on June 27, 2021, “The Federal Government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria “in the most cruel and inhuman manner.
“On June 29, 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the Federal Government where he was re-arraigned.
“Following the appellant’s preliminary objection to the 15-count charge preferred against him by the Federal Government, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, on April 8, 2022, struck out eight counts.
“Our humble submission is that the remaining seven counts ought not to be retained by the trial court because, before the time Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya, he was facing the five-count charge.
Ozekhome submitted that going by section 15 of the Extradition Act, “Kanu is not supposed to be charged without the approval of Kenyan government.
“The remaining seven counts, cannot stand, being filed illegally without following due process under the rule of speciality as envisaged under section 15 of the Extradition Act.
“Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, which were retained by the Federal High Court, were offences allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria.
“These allegations of rendition were never denied by the Federal Government and you cannot sustain the charge when you extradited the appellant without the approval of Kenyan authority.
In addition, Ozekhome argued that when charging for an offence, “you must mention the particulars and location where the office was committed.
“But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offence was allegedly committed.
Kanu’s lawyer contended that by section 45 (a) of the FHC Act, with regards to criminal charges, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.
“More so, “Section 195 and 196 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), state that a charge must have the date, time, location etc.
He insisted that there was no need for the FHC to retain the remaining seven counts and therefore urged the panel to take over the charges and strike them out.
The senior lawyer also asked the appellate court to hold that the respondent has not furnished the court with any prima facie case against the appellant for which he is being charged.
But in his response, lawyer to the Federal Government, Kaswe asked the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
