Related Articles
Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is allegedly a flight risk, according to the Federal Government.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
As it filed seven grounds of appeal against the Court of Appeal decision that released Kanu on October 13, the FG made this public in court filings.
It requested that the verdict be overturned and that the trial court resume hearing the case against the respondent.
The federal government requested a stay of execution of the judgment of the court presided over by Justice Jummai Sankey in a motion on notice in support of the appeal on Thursday, October 20. The government noted that the IPOB leader posed a flight risk and requested the stay while the appeal is heard and decided.
The Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar, Assistant Chief State Counsels D. Kaswe and A. Aluko, and Senior State Counsel G. Nweze, Department of Public Prosecution, Federal Ministry of Justice, all signed the notice of appeal dated October 18.
The appellant argued that due to “the unusual rendition of the respondent,” the appeal court erred in its interpretation of the law when it determined that Kanu could not be tried in the trial court.
“There was no evidence led by the respondent before the court of the first instance and indeed before the court below to show how he was allegedly abducted and rendered to Nigeria as required by Section 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011 since he alleged that he was abducted without having gone through the proper legal channels,” it was stated in the ruling.
In addition, the appellant argued that the court erred when it held that the executive branch could not profit from the respondent’s kidnapping, “when in fact and by its judgment, the respondent was allowed to benefit from his illegality of disobeying the court when he jumped bail and was rewarded with a discharge from the charges pending against him at the trial court, thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice against the state and the victims of his crimes.”
The government argued that the appellate court erred by holding that the criminal allegations of treason, treasonable crime, and terrorism brought against Kanu are in fact weakened by the manner in which he was brought back to the country.
The FG further stated that the appeals court’s ruling was issued without taking into consideration the fact that the respondent’s “entrance” is irrelevant to the adjudication of the accusations leveled against him.
The appellant added that the justices of the appellate court disregarded established judicial precedent on the manner of “entrance” of a defendant accused of committing a crime defined by the Supreme Court.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015 is the law that governs the trial of every Nigerian charged with committing a crime, according to the appeal notice. “The court below overlooked the appellant’s submissions with regard to the ACJA, 2015, which takes its taproot from the fundamental Section 36 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended),” the notice of appeal stated.
The FG further maintained that the court below erred in law by absolving the respondent of the offenses specified in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 touching on terrorism offenses in the amended charge dated January 14, 2022, which the trial court kept due to lack of jurisdiction.
“The verdict of the court would have been different if the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal had taken into account the act of illegality of the respondent in jumping bail and the related duty of the appellant to assure his appearance in court,” the appeal said.
