Connect with us


Don’t chase shadows, Kanu was acquitted – acquitted replies Malami: 



… Says Nigeria deserves peace

A Senoir Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome  has said that  Court of Appeal judgement, discharging  the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPoB),  Nnamdi Kanu, is an opportunity for the federal government to save its face rather than pursuing trivialities,.

Speaking as a guest of News at 10 on Channels Television, hours after the government gave an indication that it might not be setting the IPoB boss free just yet, Ozekhome, argued that the verdict of the appellate court, offered Kanu’s traducers an escape route to save face on the matter, going by the history of the case, adding that from the pronouncement and its reasoning in arriving at it, there was nothing to waste further time on.

 “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.”

“If the federal government wants to pursue trifles against a citizen by appealing against such a well-rendered judgment, I can only wish them good luck. But let me also tell the federal government that if they appeal, I’m going to file a cross appeal against two issues, which I do not agree with the Court of Appeal – that is the place of the commission of an offence, section 45 of the Federal High Court Act and the decisions of the Supreme Court, which makes it clear that you can only try a person in the place where you disclose the venue of the commission of the crime, the time, and the circumstances.

You May Also Like:-  Osodieme adjudged Nigeria’s Best First Lady

“When you say Nnamdi (Kanu) made a broadcast, from where did he make the broadcast? Is it in the spirit world? Is it in the lives of the dead? The Court of Appeal, with due respect, appeared to have glossed over that by saying it didn’t matter since the charge did not deceive him. That is not the issue. It is the venue where a crime was committed that you try the person. Nnamdi Kanu, you say made a broadcast, you’ve not told us where he made the broadcast.

“The other one which the Court of Appeal also agreed with us, where they said he brought in a transmitter at Ubuluisiuzor in Ihiala Local Government of Anambra State, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Abuja, they also agreed with us. But all in all, the issue was jurisdictional. That is that under the extradition act, particularly section 15 and under international convention – OAU, United Nations, you cannot extra-judiciarily render a person by brute force, by force of arms from one country to the other.

“There must be a warrant of arrest, which must be accompanied by a written document to the host country that we want this person back. They did not do that. They just forced him back. And the doctrine of specialty is that even when you bring back, you can only try him for the offence you brought him back for. But they still subjected Nnamdi Kanu to the first five-count charge, which they later amended to seven-count charge and later amended again to 15 counts.

You May Also Like:-  FG distributes starter packs to S’East rice farmers

“Let me tell you, the federal government has amended the counts against Nnamdi Kanu seven whole times. At the Federal High Court, I was able to get eight of the 15 counts dismissed. It was the remaining seven that the lower court held on to that were today dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The remaining seven counts were set aside and Nnamdi Kanu was set free. Discharged by the court of Appeal and the Supreme Court has said that such a discharge amounts to discharge and acquittal.

“Continuing with appeal against a mere citizen when I see the federal government should see this as a good reception, as a matter that will be good for the whole country, to bring about normalcy, peace to the South East, peace to Nigeria, and they still want to appeal, then my take on it is that it will amount to persecution and no longer prosecution.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *