Federal government files seven-point appeal against court judgement ordering it to fee Nnamdi Kanu

NIGERIA'S federal government has launched an appeal against the October 13 court judgement ordering it to release the Indigenous People of Biafra (Ipob) leader Nnamdi Kanu saying that he is a flight risk and would abscond if set free.

Earlier this month, Nigeria's Court of Appeal declared Mr Kanu's detention illegal and unlawful and quashed the terrorism charges brought against him by the federal government. In a judgment delivered by Justice Oludotun Adefope-Okojie, the criminal charges by the federal government against Mr Kanu were voided and set aside as the authorities were adjudged to have acted outside the law.

According to the court, the federal government, having flagrantly breached the fundamental rights of Mr Kanu, lost the legal right to put him on trial. Also, the court held that laws are meant to be obeyed and that the federal government has no reason to have taken laws into her own hand in the illegal and unlawful way the matter of Mr Kanu was handled.

However, in a swift response, Abubakar Malami, Nigeria's attorney-general, said that the federal government will not release Mr Kanu but would rather file fresh charges against him. Yesterday, the government filed seven grounds of appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment, asking the Supreme Court to restore the charges against Mr Kanu to be tried at the trial court.

In a motion on notice in support of the appeal, the federal government is also seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of the court presided over by Justice Jummai Sankey, pending the hearing and final determination of its appeal, noting that the Ipob leader posed a flight risk. According to the government, the appellate court erred in law when it held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try Mr Kanu because of the extraordinary rendition of the respondent.

Also, the government claimed that the court erred when it held that the executive arm must not be allowed to benefit from the abduction of the respondent. It added that by the court's judgment, the respondent was allowed to benefit from his illegality of disobeying the orders of the court when he jumped bail and was rewarded with a discharge from the charges pending against him at the trial court.

This, the government claimed, occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the state and the victims of the crimes perpetrated by the respondent. Also, the government claimed that the appeal court was wrong by saying that how Mr Kanu was brought back to the country can vitiate and indeed weaken the criminal charges of treason, treasonable felony and terrorism brought against him.

It added that the lower court made that decision without taking into account the fact that the nature of the entry’ of the respondent is not relevant in the determination of the charges against him. Also, the government observed that the appellate court was completely silent and closed its eyes to the obvious fact of the issues which predate the rendition of the respondent because he was standing trial for conspiracy and treasonable felony terrorism before his escape.