Supreme Court overturns Kanu’s acquittal despite ruling FG’s action unlawful

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, was accused of treasonable felony by the Federal Government, but the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 judgement clearing him of all charges was overturned by the Supreme Court on Friday.

Kanu has to go on trial, the supreme court said.

Regarding the conditions in which Kanu was picked up in Kenya and transported to Nigeria, it had harsh words for the Federal Government.

Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu’s kinsmen express dissatisfaction with judiciary’s decision

The court declared the government’s action to be unlawful.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, much of the South East was left feeling dejected.

Many in that region of the nation had anticipated the court’s decision to release him.

Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, the President General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, made a plea to President Bola Tinubu, claiming that he is now the only one capable of releasing Kanu, urging him to intervene and grant his release.

But the gang did not take kindly to Iwuanyanwu’s previous demand for amnesty for IPOB members and Kanu.

IPOB deemed Iwuanyanwu’s call to be unfounded and rejected it.

The IPOB leader was brought back from Kenya to stand trial, but the prosecution behaved illegally, according to a five-member panel of the highest court, which was led by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun. As a result, the Court of Appeal erred in its decision to discharge and exonerate Kanu.

The Supreme Court ruled that even though Kanu was forcibly returned to Nigeria from Kenya, the prosecution’s illegal action should not prevent the trial court of the jurisdiction from pursuing Kanu’s case. Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba wrote the lead judgement, which Justice Emmanuel Agim read.

According to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, evidence gathered through an illegal search or a breach of an accused person’s right to privacy is admissible in court under Nigerian law.

Furthermore, the accused person’s argument that an illegality committed against him or her related to their right to a standing trial before a court should deprive the trial court of jurisdiction and render the prosecution process incompetent is not supported by the law, the court stated.

“We have made an analogy between the use of evidence obtained illegally, or as a result of the accused’s right to privacy being violated, and evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search,” the court declared.

“How does our law react in such a situation? Our legal position is that the evidence is admissible in court regardless of what transpired.

Should the court lose its authority to try the case presented against an individual who is suspected of committing a crime because the police illegally detained, arrested, tortured, and subjected him to other forms of dehumanisation?

The courts “have continued to insist that an accused person should be tried on the basis of any reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.”

Agim continued, “The accused’s legal remedy is to institute a civil proceeding if he or she believes that the prosecution has violated their rights while they are on trial.”

“That has been the position of Nigerian law for a very long time,” he said. The Nigerian legal system is not developed enough to allow for the declaration that a court’s proceeding is incompetent and that the court is no longer authorised to hear the case due to a blatant violation of the accused person’s right to a trial before a court. At this time, that is not our law.

In conclusion, no Nigerian law lends credence to the assertion that a trial court loses jurisdiction in cases where the prosecution has committed unlawful acts against a defendant who is awaiting trial.

“The person’s trial would not be stopped if the prosecution, in its typical zeal and malice, demolished the defendant’s home in an attempt to find and gather evidence. Only a cause of action for a civil remedy will result from it. Of course not to end the trial.

Therefore, we made the decision not to follow the Court of Appeal in this case because doing so shouldn’t deprive the trial court of its authority.

“Nigerian law does not support the Court of Appeal’s position, as strongly as we condemn what the prosecution did against the accused.”

When Kanu was granted bail by the trial court, the military’s raid of his residence was denounced by the court as completely reckless.

Additionally, the judge criticised the trial court’s decision to revoke Kanu’s bail on the basis that he had jumped bail following an invasion of his home.

He said Kanu should not be held responsible if he fled his home due to a potentially fatal invasion.

We concluded that the cancellation of his bail was completely unjust and incorrect at that point. Recall that Nigeria’s recovery from the Umaru Dikko case has been somewhat slow.

Notwithstanding all of that, Justice Agim stated, “we found that the Court of Appeal was incorrect to hold that the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the trial.”

Kanu’s cross-appeal against some of the Court of Appeal’s ruling was also rejected by the supreme court.

In an October 13, 2022 ruling, the Court of Appeal in Abuja criticised the Federal Government’s handling of Kanu’s repatriation and subsequent trial.

Subsequently, the appeal court dismissed the final seven counts of the 15-count treasonable felony allegation, which Kanu was facing in a Federal High Court in Abuja, prior to his bail jumping.

The Court of Appeal believed that Kanu’s detention in Kenya and subsequent transfer to Nigeria constituted a breach of the Federal Government’s norms of engagement.

In addition, the Court of Appeal stated that the government chose to use illegal kidnapping and rendition rather than file an extradition request for Kanu in Kenya, in violation of international law, and turned to self-help.

The three-person appellate court bench then moved to free Kanu from detention, discharged him, and declared him innocent.

The Federal Government applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution until the outcome of its appeal against the judgement before it could be carried out, and the Court of Appeal approved the application.

Kanu filed a cross-appeal when it later challenged the ruling to the Supreme Court.

In a previous decision, Federal High Court Judge Binta Nyako dismissed eight of the fifteen charges that were initially brought against Kanu.

The Court of Appeal overturned the final seven counts.

Kanu faces amended seven counts of terrorism charges, including issuing a deadly threat via broadcast that was heard and received nationwide, saying that anyone in the Southeast who disobeyed his order to stay at home should write their will. The broadcast also caused banks, schools, markets, shopping centres and petrol stations in that region to close, which had an impact on locals and resulted in the grounding of vehicular movements.

The Federal Government further claimed that the leader of IPOB had, between 2018 and 2021, broadcast and received inciting messages in Nigeria, encouraging people to hunt down and murder Nigerian security personnel as well as their families. This was considered a criminal offence under Section 1(2)(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.

Order the release of Kanu, Iwuanyanwu to Tinubu.

Chief Iwuanyanwu pleaded with President Bola Tinubu to release Kanu shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday.

“President Tinubu, not the court, is hearing our appeal. “We remain optimistic and feel that now is the right moment for the President to take action and release Nnamdi Kanu,” Iwuanyanwu stated.

“We are pleading with President Tinubu to intervene and release him in the interest of peace, and we think he will comply with our request.”

Ohanaeze (Southeast) Vice President Chief Damian Okeke-Ogene expressed unhappiness with the court’s decision.

By phone, Okeke-Ogene told The Nation, “The judgement is shocking to us and unbelievable.”

Abaribe craves serenity.

Enyinnaya Abaribe, a former Senate minority leader, urged calm in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to keep Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in custody.

Ndigbo would actively seek a political solution that would ultimately lead to Kanu’s release, according to Abaribe, who previously stood surety for him before he skipped bail.

If for no other reason than to maintain the unity and cohesion of the nation, he expressed his conviction that the Federal Government “will do something very fast to release Nnamdi Kanu.”

“As leaders, we will not give up on finding the best course of action in this situation.”

In a similar vein, the Coalition of South East Youth Leaders (COSEYL) voiced unhappiness with the decision.

“We are totally disappointed over the judgement,” stated Goodluck Ibem, the organization’s president general, “because we expected the court to uphold the judgement of the Appeal Court.” After the Appeal Court released him, it is illegal to keep him.

He ought to have been released by the court so that the government could file an appeal. Prior to filing an appeal with the Supreme Court, they ought to have obeyed the Appeal Court’s ruling and released him. Therefore, it is sad and abnormal for the Supreme Court to rule without following the Appeal Court’s decision.

The fight to liberate Nnamdi has only just begun, according to Chief Goddy Uwazuruike, an Igbo elder.

“The fight to liberate Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is still ongoing,” he declared. Though not permanently, justice can be suppressed. The Mandela, Kaunda, Kenyata, and Nkrumah trials are being paralleled by this case. MNK will emerge from the tunnel and return to freedom one day.

It was highly anticipated by Chief Modestus Umenzekwe, another Igbo leader, that Kanu would return home free yesterday.

He declared: “Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation, there is nothing we can do. Nnamdi Kanu is our son and brother, and we were expecting the court to release him. However, since that didn’t happen.

Let’s restart in the lower court, though; it will be as if we are starting over from scratch. One thing is certain: we will keep discussing the issue with the government.

Dr. Charles Chinekezi, the Chairman of Civil Liberties Organisations (CLO) in Aba, declared: “Nnamdi Kanu’s case has not been handled effectively by them. Numerous courts and verdicts in this country had dismissed him and declared him innocent.

“However, the Federal Government of this nation continues to hold him in violation of the country’s laws and constitution.

“Observe the means and ability required to bring Nnamdi Kanu before the courts? Such resources are being wastefully used by Nigeria.

They stated that he poses a security danger while terrorists are at large in Nigeria, but look at the economic damage his prolonged arrest has caused the nation.

Which court will rule on a person’s freedom when that person is detained anywhere in the world? Nowhere in the civilised world is it practiced.

“Nnamdi Kanu Kanu should be released by the Federal Government, in my opinion. It’s improper for him to remain in jail.

Iwuanyanwu’s request for amnesty is rejected by IPOB, which desires a referendum.

Chief Iwuanyanu’s request for the Federal Government to free Kanu and give the group’s members amnesty was met with opposition from the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

It declared that Iwuanyanwu’s stance was unfounded and wrong.

The group’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, declared, “We completely disagree with Chief Iwanyanwu on his call for a bogus amnesty because members of IPOB are not criminals.” Our group is an agitation for self-determination. Despite all of their provocations, we have not declared war on the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“We are not at war over dominance of our abundant resources. We are unarmed liberation fighters fighting to save our lives and the sovereignty and independence of the Biafran people. We refuse to be intimidated, persuaded, or allowed to take IPOB’s focus away from these fundamental human rights.

We are not in need of amnesty. We must be free! We just ask that our leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who was kidnapped unlawfully in Kenya and extradited to Nigeria, be freed. After that, a referendum should be held to allow the people of Biafra to determine whether to remain in Nigeria or leave it.