The Special Counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Aloy Ejimakor has reacted to the Supreme Court ruling that quashed Kanu’s acquittal and revealed the next line of action.
Ejimakor while speaking to newsmen shortly after the Supreme Court refused to order Kanu’s release, revealed that the legal team of the IPOB leader will move for a bail application for him at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Supreme Court In a judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim and written by Justice Garba Lawal, overturned the Appeal Court ruling that discharged and acquitted Kanu of all terrorism charges in October 2022.
The apex court ruled that though the Nigerian government recklessly and unlawfully rendered Kanu from Kenya, it has not divested any court from proceeding with trial.
Justice Lawal reasoned that no Nigerian law was cited in the suit seeking Kanu’s release on mere unlawful abduction from Kenya.
The judge advised that at the moment, the remedy for such action is for Kanu to file a civil matter against such an act instead of removing the powers of courts to continue with his trial for alleged criminal charges.
The Supreme Court then ordered Kanu to defend himself in the remaining 7 counts of terrorism charges against him at the Federal High Court.
Ejimakor while reacting to the ruling, said he was expecting the Supreme court to affirm the ruling of the Appeal Court.
“I had high hopes that, based on the law of extradition, the Supreme Court should have affirmed the discharge order made by the Court of Appeal.
“Yes! First, we shall proceed with apace bail application to reinstate his bail in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court.”
The IPOB Special Counsel also expressed reservation with the ruling of the Supreme Court on Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya.
“I am not satisfied with the Supreme Court’s discountenance of the extraordinary rendition, because it does not comport with the doctrine of fair hearing”, he said.
“The Supreme Court justified its position on the theory that our jurisprudence has not developed to the point of recognizing extraordinary rendition as a barrier to prosecution. That is so wrong because it implies that Nigerian jurisprudence is primitive, behind the times and retrograde.”
