APRIL 18 , 2023 | EASTERN PILOT Report By: Chinedu Aroh | The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has alleged tha...
APRIL 18 , 2023 | EASTERN PILOT
Report By: Chinedu Aroh |
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has alleged that there are plans to infect him with tuberculosis. Kanu is being detained at the custody of the Department of State Services in Abuja over alleged running a proscribed group, jumping bail in 2017 and treason. He was illegally kidnapped in Kenya by the Nigerian agents and brought to Nigeria in 2021 without any legal process of extridiction. Nigeria breached international law crime of extraordinary rendition on Kanu and despite court rulings discharging him, the federal government has refused to release him disobeying the orders of the court.
Kanu made the allegation of exposing him to the dreaded bacteria infection through his special counsel, Barr Aloy Ejimakor. Ejimakor tweeted on Monday afternoon that, “Today, my associate, Barr Mandela, met with Onyendu #MNK at the DSS. “He reports that MNK directed me to make it public that he had an episode of profuse nose-bleed yesterday & that the DSS has transferred a detainee diagnosed with tuberculosis to his cell block. This is ominous.”
Tuberculosis (TB) is a contagious infection that usually attacks human lungs. It can also spread to other parts of the body, like brain and spine, and caused Mycobacterium tuberculosis, according to Webmed.com. Recall that on October 13, 2022 the Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, discharged and acquitted the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, of the 15-count terrorism charges brought against him by the federal government. The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, faulted the process through which Kanu was brought before the Federal High Court to answer to a 15-count terrorism charges.
The appeal court ruled that the arrest, abduction and subsequent arraignment of Kanu before a Federal High Court violated international convention on terrorism and, thus, robbed any court of law in Nigeria necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Justice Adedotun Adefope-Okijie, who read the judgement of the three-man panel, noted that there was nowhere the federal government showed it complied with the procedures for the extradition of the IPOB leader from Kenya last year.
The appellate court listed the conditions, according to the Organisation of Africa Unity (OAU), which a state must meet to include a formal application for extradition to the host country, permission from court, and statement of the alleged offences in connection with the extradition request amongst others.
The court explained that the requirements were aimed at ensuring that people were only extradited after full conviction of alleged committal of an offence and not for any other purpose.
She held that Nigeria must learn to play by the rules and that the courts owed the country and people a duty to ensure that the executive abided by the law at all times particularly, when the country was a signatory to such laws. While noting that the court might not have the powers to dictate to the executive, Adefope-Okijie saidit could prevent the executive from abusing the law, adding that courts should not be shy to always call the executive to order.
The three-man panel said the issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellant was one that was critical to the case, which the court ought to have resolved first. While stating that the issue of jurisdiction was properly raised before the trial court, Adefope-Okijie observed that the trial court turned a blind eye to it. She stated, “The lower court must pronounce properly on all issues presented before it. The trial court ought to have made findings on the issue raised regarding the extradition.”
The judge added that the lower court had no jurisdiction to try the respondent in the retained charges. “No court can try him going by the circumstances of the extraordinary rendition,” the court held. According to the judgement, the federal government violated international convention on terrorism, which it was a signatory to, when it illegally arrested Kanu in Kenya and extraordinarily brought him to Nigeria for trial. The appellate court held that the warrant of arrest issued against Kanu was not enough reason or excuse for the government to violate international convention and charters.
Having resolved issue one in favour of the appellant, which deals with jurisdiction, the appeal court said the order of Justice Binta Nyako, which ordered the appellant to answer to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 was set aside, terminated and dismissed. “Appellant is accordingly discharged,” the appellate court held. Kanu had faulted the order of Nyako of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which had in April this year ordered him to respond to seven out of the 15-count terrorism charge against him.
No comments