Treason Trial: Why Supreme Court reversed Kanu’s acquittal

The Supreme Court yesterday reversed the October 13, 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu of treasonable felony brought against him by the Federal Government.

The apex court declared that Kanu must face trial.

But it had harsh words for the Federal Government over the circumstances under which Kanu was picked up in Kenya and brought to Nigeria.

The court labelled the action of the government illegal.

A pall of disappointment fell on much of the South East yesterday following the decision of the Supreme Court.

Many in that part of the country had looked forward to his release by the court.

The President General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, appealed to President Bola Tinubu,who he said is now the only person who can free Kanu, to step in and order his release.

However, Iwuanyanwu’s earlier call for an amnesty for Kanu and IPOB members did not go down well with the group.

IPOB rejected Iwuanyanwu’s call which it branded baseless.

A five-member panel of the apex court, presided over by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have discharged and acquitted Kanu on the ground that the prosecution acted illegally in the manner the IPOB leader was brought back from Kenya to face trial.

In the lead judgment written by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, but read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the Supreme Court said although Kanu was illegally brought back to Nigeria from Kenya, that unlawful act of the prosecution should not stop the trial court of the jurisdiction to continue Kanu’s case.

The Supreme Court held that under the Nigerian law, evidence obtained as a result of violation of the rights of an accused person to privacy and the evidence obtained as a result of illegal search are legal evidence before the court.

Besides, the court said the law does not support an argument by an accused person that an illegality has been committed against him/her concerning his/her standing trial before a court, and that such illegality committed against him/her by the prosecution should divest the trial court of jurisdiction and render the prosecution process incompetent.

Said the court: “We have made an analogy of the use of illegally obtained evidence or evidence obtained as a result of the violation of the right of the accused to privacy and the evidence obtained as a result of illegal search.

“What is the response of our law to such situation? The position of our law is that, despite what happened, that evidence is proper evidence before the court.

“If the police should illegally detain a person accused of committing a crime and illegally arrest him, torture him and subject him to all kinds of dehumanisation, should that divest the court of the jurisdiction to try the case brought against him in that process?

“The courts have continued to insist that as long as there is a reasonable basis of suspicion of the commission of an offence, an accused should be tried on that basis.”

Agim added that where an accused person, who is standing trial before a court, feels that his/her rights have been violated by the prosecution, the remedy, by law, lies in the accused instituting a civil proceeding.

His words: “That has been the position of the Nigerian law for a very long time. The Nigerian law has not developed to the point whereby it could be said that, on account of the clear violation of the right of an accused person standing trial before a court, the proceeding before that court has become incompetent and the court is divested of jurisdiction to continue to hear the case. That is not our law for now.

“All said and done, there is no Nigerian law that supports the position that the trial court no longer has jurisdiction where the prosecution did anything illegal against an accused person while he is standing trial.

“If the prosecution, in its usual overzealousness and malice, destroys a person’s house in a bid to search for and collect evidence, that would not stop the person’s trial. It will only lead to a cause of action for civil remedy. Certainly, not to stop the trial.

“So, for that reason, we decided not to go with the Court of Appeal on this issue because that should not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction.

“In as much as we strongly condemn what the prosecution did against the accused, Nigerian law does not support the position taken by the Court of Appeal.”

The court branded as totally irresponsible, the invasion of Kanu’s home by the military when he was granted bail by the trial court.

The judge also faulted the decision of the trial court to revoke Kanu’s bail on the grounds that he jumped bail after his house was invaded.

He noted that, if as a result of the life threatening invasion of his home, Kanu ran away, he should not be blamed.

“That is where we found the revocation of his bail as totally wrong and unfair. Remember that Nigeria has barely recovered from the case of Umaru Dikko.

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

The apex court also dismissed the cross-appeal filed by Kanu against a portion of the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja had, in its judgment on October 13, 2022 faulted the manner the Federal Government brought Kanu back into the country to continue his trial

The appellate court then quashed the seven counts left in the 15-count treasonable felony charge, on which Kanu was being tried before a Federal High Court in Abuja, before he jumped bail.

The Court of Appeal was of the view that the Federal Government violated rules of engagement in the way and manner Kanu was arrested in Kenya and brought to Nigeria.

The Court of Appeal added that the government breached international laws and resorted to self-help following its failure to file an extradition application against Kanu in Kenya, but chose to resort to unlawful abduction and rendition.

The appellate court’s three-member panel proceeded to discharge Kanu, acquitted him and ordered his release from custody.

Before the judgment could be executed, the Federal Government applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending the determination of its appeal against the judgment, an application the Court of Appeal granted.

It subsequently appealed the judgment at the Supreme Court, with Kanu filing a cross-appeal.

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court had, in an earlier ruling, struck out eight of the 15 counts in the original charge filed against Kanu.

The amended seven counts of terrorism charges against Kanu include issuing a deadly threat via a broadcast, heard and received across the country, that anyone who disobeyed his sit-at-home order in the South-eastern states should write his or her will and that the resulting effect of the broadcast had caused banks, schools, markets, shopping malls, fuel stations in that part of the country to shut down their business operations, affecting citizens and leading to grounding of vehicular movements.

The Federal Government further alleged that the IPOB leader had between 2018 and 2021, made inciting broadcasts, received and heard in Nigeria, instigating the public to hunt and kill Nigerian security personnel and their family members, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 1 (2) (h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.

Moments after the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday, Chief Iwuanyanwu appealed to President Bola Tinubu to set Kanu free.

“Our appeal is before President Tinubu, not the court. We have not given up hope and we believe this is the time the President should act and set Nnamdi Kanu free,” Iwuanyanwu said.

“We are appealing to the president to step in and set him free for the sake of peace and we believe that President Tinubu will grant our appeal.”

The Vice President of Ohanaeze (Southeast), Chief Damian Okeke-Ogene expressed disappointment at the court’s pronouncement.

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

Abaribe urges calm

Former Senate Minority Leader, Enyinnaya Abaribe, called for calm over the non-release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu by the Supreme Court.

Abaribe who once stood surety for Kanu before he jumped bail said Ndigbo would vigorously pursue a political solution that would ultimately set him free.

He said he was convinced that the Federal Government “will do something very fast to release Nnamdi Kanu, if for no other reason, but for national cohesion and unity of the country.

“As leaders, we shall continue to press for a solution that will be the best in the circumstance.”

The Coalition of South East Youth Leaders(COSEYL) similarly expressed disappointment at the ruling.

The President General of the organisation, Goodluck Ibem said: "we are totally disappointed over the judgement because we expected the court to uphold the judgment of the Appeal Court. It is unlawful to keep him when the Appeal Court has set him free.

“The court should have set him free and the government can then appeal. They should have released him as ordered by the Appeal Court before appealing to the Supreme Court. So, for the Supreme Court to give judgment without obeying the Appeal Court judgment is disappointing and an aberration.”

An Igbo leader, Chief Goddy Uwazuruike said the struggle to free Nnamdi has just started.

He said: "The struggle to free Mazi Nnamdi Kanu continues. Justice can be suppressed but not for ever. This case is threading the path of the Mandela, Kaunda, Kenyata and Nkrumah trials. One day MNK will exit the tunnel and come back to freedom.”

Another Igbo leader Chief Modestus Umenzekwe was full of expectation that Kanu would go home a free man yesterday.

He said: ” Nnamdi Kanu is our son and brother and we were expecting his release by the Supreme Court, but since it didn’t happen, there’s nothing we can do because it’s the highest court in the land.

“But let us go back to the lower court to start again, it’s like going back to the drawing board. One thing is clear, we will continue our dialogue with the government over the matter.”

The Chairman Civil Liberties Organizations (CLO) in Aba, Dr. Charles Chinekezi said: “They have not treated Nnamdi Kanu’s case well. He had been discharged and acquitted by several courts and several rulings in this country.

“But the Federal Government of this country is still holding him wrongly against the constitution and laws of this land.

“Look at the resources and capacity that it took to bring Nnamdi Kanu to court? Nigeria is wasting such resources for no reason.

“Look at the economic mess his continued detention has caused the country and they said that he is a security risk while terrorists are on the loose in Nigeria.

“Which court in the world will give a ruling on the freedom of a person and the person is being held? It is not done in any part of the civilized world.

“My advice is that the Federal Government should release Nnamdi Kanu Kanu. His continued detention is wrong.”

IPOB rejects Iwuanyanwu’s call for amnesty, insists on referendum

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) disagreed with Chief Iwuanyanu on his appeal to the Federal Government to release Kanu and grant amnesty to members of the group.

It said Iwuanyanwu’s position was misguided and baseless.

Spokesman for the group, Emma Powerful said: "We totally disagree with Chief Iwanyanwu on his call for a baseless amnesty because IPOB members are not criminals. We are a self-determination agitation group. We have not waged war against the Federal Government of Nigeria irrespective of all their provocations.

“We are not fighting to control our vast resources. We are unarmed freedom fighters for the sovereignty and independence of the people of Biafra to save our lives. We are not going to allow anyone to cajole, intimidate, or divert IPOB’s attention from these basic human rights.

“We don’t need amnesty. We need freedom! Our requests are simple; release our leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who was illegally abducted in Kenya and renditioned to Nigeria; then schedule a referendum date for the people of Biafra to decide their fate either to stay in Nigeria or exit Nigeria.”