Babatunji Wusu –
As the Federal Government prepares to resume the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the head of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who is being held on terrorism and treasonable felony charges, the Federal High Court in Abuja is being guarded closely.
The court is next to the Federal Ministry of Justice headquarters, but only those who have been vetted by the Department of State Services (DSS) are allowed admission.
The Supreme Court’s decision on December 15, 2023, permitting the Federal Government to move forward and overriding an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had invalidated the charges and ordered Kanu’s freedom, is what led to this trial continuation.
After being detained in Lagos on October 14, 2015, Kanu had a turbulent legal journey that included being granted release due to health concerns and making a daring getaway from the country. However, he was later apprehended in Kenya and brought back against his will in June 2021.
The Supreme Court has contested this ruling, stating it was biased, notwithstanding the appeal court’s unanimous judgment in October 2022 to drop all charges against Kanu due to the Nigerian government’s unlawful extradition methods.
As parties await more proceedings, the court’s increased security and heightened emotions are the result of this legal back and forth.
As far as Nigeria is concerned, the lower court did not cite any Nigerian authority,” the apex court noted, even as it slammed FG for acting “irresponsibly”, when it bypassed the law to bring Kanu back to the country for the continuation of his trial.
“Be that as it may, what is the position of the Nigerian law, where an accused is saying an illegality has been committed against me?
“It is like saying that an evidence should not be admitted because it was illegally obtained. Our law is that, notwithstanding the procedure, it is still a valid evidence before the court.
“If the police arrest a defendant, torture them, and illegally obtain evidence, does it divest the trial court of its jurisdiction?” the court queried.
It held that the remedy open for Kanu was for him to institute a civil proceeding against FG.
“That is the position of the Nigerian law,” the apex court held, adding that the judgement of the appellate court, though noble, “still remains within the realm of sentiment.”
Insisting that judgement in such a case must be based on express legislation, the Supreme Court said it found no reason to align itself with the appellate court’s position.
“There is no legislation in Nigeria that says the trial court will no longer have jurisdiction where prosecution does anything illegal against a person standing trial.
“If prosecution destroys someone’s home in search of evidence, that will not stop the trial, but will raise a cause of action.
“We decline to go with the Court of Appeal, in as much as we strongly condemn what the prosecution did.
“Nigeria must be concerned about its image, both locally and internationally. If a person is standing trial, why must you invade his home? That is totally irresponsible,” the apex court added.
It held that FG ought to have approached the trial court if it felt that Nnamdi Kanu breached his bail conditions.
Besides, it held that the high court acted wrongly when it revoked the initial bail it granted to Kanu, saying the action was “totally unfair” since he took a flight to save his life.
“Nigeria barely recovered from the case of Umaru Dikko, and we should not repeat it,” the apex court warned as it upheld FG’s appeal marked: SC/CR/1361/2022 and dismissed Kanu’s Cross-Appeal marked: SC/CR/394/2022.
It ordered Nnmadi Kanu to go back and defend himself on the seven-count charge that is pending against him.
Kanu reportedly sacked his legal team after the judgement.
