27th April, 2024
By Ayorinde Oluokun/Abuja
Aloy Ejimakor, the lawyer to detained leader Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra, IPOB, has called on the Nigerian government to end his trial after the United States, U.S acknowledged that he was a victim of arbitrary arrest
Ejimakor made the call in a statement titled: ‘Thank you, America, for officially and publicly acknowledging the unlawfulness of Nnamdi Kanu’s rendition,’ he released on Saturday morning.
Ejimakor noted that in a publication captioned “2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Nigeria”, the US government noted that “Nigeria’s secret police had violated Kanu’s rights during his arrest and extradition” and that Kanu was a victim of “arbitrary arrest” in June 2021.
“On behalf of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, his Legal Team hereby expresses its profound appreciation to the Government of the United States including, in particular, the US Mission in Nigeria. It is indeed a demonstration of diplomatic courage.
“It needs to be emphasized that this laudable position the US government has waited for almost three years to take and make public is surely well-considered and thus important for two reasons,” Ejimakor said.
The lawyer argued that the position of the U.S, was in alignment with arguments lawyer of Kanu have been making since June 2021 that the IPOB leader “was unlawfully renditioned, not lawfully extradited. These are two opposite concepts that bear dissimilar legal implications”
He added that such assertions coming from a respected and an influential foreign power like the United States “will likely encourage the Government of Nigeria to also acknowledge that it had gravely violated Kanu’s inalienable human rights by subjecting him to a horrendous extraordinary rendition.
“To be sure, one way the Government of Nigeria can come clean and acknowledge this egregious wrong done to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is to banish any further temptations to impunity and summon its powers and discretions under the Constitution to bring the prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu to closure, without further ado.
“In our view, this is the most sensible thing to do because Kanu’s prosecution has, by effluxion of time, become attritional and questionable to boot, given that it was initiated almost a decade ago in 2015 and for alleged offences that are no longer in play.
“There are other cogent reasons, including the open and notorious fact that it is becoming increasingly clear that Nnamdi Kanu may never get a fair trial by dint of the grave complications created by the locale of his current detention,” Ejimakor said.
Recall that the IPOB leader was initially standing trial on a 15-count charge bordering on terrorism offences before eight of the counts were quashed by the trial judge leaving seven counts, and the Supreme Court, on Dec. 15, 2023, affirmed the lower court decision.
Consequently, the trial of the IPOB leader has resumed at the Federal High Court after the decision of the Supreme Court on the counts one, two, three, four, five, eight and 15 of the charges which Kanu pleaded not guilty of.
However, the court at its last sitting on April 4 had threatened to adjourn the trial of Kanu, indefinitely after Ejimakor said the legal team was not ready for the trial.
However, counsel for the Federal Government, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, informed the court that the prosecution was ready for the commencement of the trial based on the order of the court in the last adjourned date.
Justice Bintu Nyako also heard the two pending applications filed by Ejimakor on Kanu’s behalf. The first application sought for an order restoring Kanu’s bail that was revoked in 2017 and the second application sought an order transferring the IPOB leader to a house arrest.
Ejimakor had argued that the revocation of his bail was as a result of the act of the prosecution when his client’s home was invaded.
The lawyer argued that even the Supreme Court agreed that Kanu did not jump bail but only escaped for his dear life.
He also insisted that there had been no change in the detention of Department of State Service (DSS) where Kanu is currently kept.
He argued that the defendant’s legal team was not given unhindered access in accordance with Section 36(6) of the constitution to consult with him and adequately prepare for his defence.
Counsel to the federal government, however, urged the court to discountenance Ejimakor’s submissions.
The senior lawyer argued that the court was ”functus officio” to make another order vacating the earlier revocation order.
He said the court lacked the jurisdiction to make such an order and that the only option left for parties was to appeal.
He insisted that parties were bound by the court order.
Awomolo said the defence only relied on a side comment of (orbiter) one of the justices of the Supreme Court.
According to him, a side comment does not decide the main issue.
He argued that the detained Kanu was not being charged for money laundering but terrorism.
He described terrorism charge as the worst charge today in Nigerian law.
Awomolo equally urged the court to dismiss the application seeking for Kanu’s transfer to a house arrest, arguing that Ejimakor’s allegations were not backed by verifiable evidence.
He said the defence did not deny the fact that they were allowed access to their client.
“We have before your lordship signatures and names of all the counsel who have visited him,” he added.
He said that it was the discretion of the court to remand Kanu in a place that is safe and secure.
The lawyer further argued that what the defence team wanted was an executive and unsecure place where Kanu can be kept.
Justice Nyako, who fixed May 20 for ruling on the two applications, directed the prosecution to call their witness.
When Awomolo, who already notified the court that they had a witness in court, said he was ready to proceed, Ejimakor insisted that they were not ready to proceed with the trial.
“We have not prepared our client for trial,” he said, adding that no lawyer would allow a trial when Section 36(6) of the constitution had not been respected.
But the judge threatened to adjourn the trial sine die (indefinitely) if Ejimakor insisted that the trial should not continue.