Hot Source
Opportunism
Isn’t it bewildering and almost laughable, if it wasn’t that many people have been killed in the South East over the so-called agitation for Biafra which evolved into terrorism and criminality, that Opportunist, Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed IPOB group, who was extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021, to face terrorism and treasonable felony charges, is blaming others and not himself, his cohort, Simon Ekpa (who is currently serving a 6 year sentence in Finland, following his conviction on terrorism charges), and their violent group, for the killing of Christians in the South East? I guess no one can blame him, for ‘sharply’ seizing the opportunity to further his own cause, by writing to President Trump to praise him for designating Nigeria as a CPC (Country of Particular Concern), and trying to take advantage of the situation for his own benefit.
Background
Before Kanu’s escape from Nigeria in 2017, he had been facing a 4 count charge along with his Co-Defendants, to which he had pleaded not guilty. He was granted bail on April 25, 2017, and the case set down for trial. To be fair, Kanu didn’t exactly jump bail, he ran for dear life when the Army descended on his family home, even resulting in some deaths. See Page 18 of Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC’s Judgement in FRN v Nnamdi Kanu SC/CR/1361/2022 Judgement delivered on 15/12/2023. From wherever Kanu was, like Simon Ekpa, he is alleged to have continued to incite his foot soldiers to violence and terrorism in the South East. During President Buhari’s administration, in June 2021, Kanu was forcibly brought back to Nigeria (extraordinary rendition). He was abducted in Kenya, without the proper extradition process followed. See the definition of Extradition in Udeozor v FRN 2007 15 N.W.L.R. Part 1058 Page 499 per Monica Dongban-Mensem, JCA (now PCA).
On his return to Nigeria, Kanu was brought before the Federal High Court to continue with the criminal charges he had been facing, which were amended to 15 counts. In the Judgement of 8/4/2022 per Binta Nyako J, only 7 of the 15 counts were retained. On appeal, in Nnamdi Kanu v FRN (2022) LPELR-58768(CA), the Court of Appeal held that due to Kanu’s extraordinary rendition in breach of International and State laws, the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case, terminated and struck out the 7 charges against Kanu, and discharged him. The Court of Appeal’s finding was in line with that of the District Court of New York in the case of Businessman, Lanre Shittu, who was abducted and taken to USA to face money laundering charges. The NY Court freed Mr Shittu on the ground that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case, because Nigeria and USA had violated their Extradition Treaty by forcibly taking Mr Shittu to USA. See Articles 9 & 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 12 (4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9, LFN 2004; Article/Part 5 (A) of the African Charter’s Principles and Guidelines on Human and Peoples’ Rights while Countering Terrorism in Africa; and Article 13 of the UDHR, 1984.
In my piece of 25/10/2022 “Kanu: Untangling the Court Orders”, following the Court of Appeal decision in Nnamdi Kanu v FRN (Supra), I had raised some pertinent questions, to wit: “The Court of Appeal having discharged Kanu, could it have also ruled that Kanu be returned to Kenya from where he was abducted, in order to avail him the opportunity to fight any extradition proceedings which the Nigerian Government should have instituted against him in the first place? Can Kanu’s discharge from the Amended charges, nullify the charges he was facing before his escape, if the court lacked the jurisdiction to amend them after he was brought back by force? Should Kanu’s case return to the ‘status quo ante bellum’, that is, how it was before the war, the war in this context, being his escape from Nigeria in September 2017?”
These questions that I had raised, were subsequently answered by the Supreme Court in FRN v Nnamdi Kanu (Supra). Unlike the Court of Appeal, the Apex Court disagreed with the NY Court’s position of the law, and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal; the 7 charges against Kanu, reinstated, and the case remitted back to the Federal High Court for trial. The Supreme Court held that the manner in which Kanu was brought back to Nigeria, didn’t rob the Federal High Court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
Present Day: FRN v Nnamdi Kanu FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015
Currently, Kanu’s matter is before Omotosho J of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division. Someone should have advised Kanu to recall his Lawyers, or appoint new Counsel if he didn’t require the services of his previous Counsel.
Firstly, his behaviour in court in some videos that have made the rounds, shows an aggressive individual with an inflated ego, who is under the delusion that he is above the law and not answerable to it. Recently, Kanu had a little melt down in court, screaming out loud (hopefully the trial Judge wasn’t sitted, as it would have been contempt in facie curiae): “You cannot, you cannot, you can’t convict me. Are you insane? It’s not possible. I’m Nnamdi Kanu. Who is going to try it? Nobody can. They have not given birth to the person…..”. These days, when I see people behave in a way that fails the reasonable man’s test, I simply question their mental stability. If pardons were based on good behaviour, Kanu’s violent, abusive outbursts in court would certainly not get him on any list of Pardonees. On the contrary, it makes one wonder what Kanu would do as a free man, when someone annoys him or fails to do his bidding. Years ago, some audio recordings allegedly of Kanu, made the rounds on social media. In one of them, the Speaker was ordering his boys to kill a member of the family of someone, a fellow Igbo man I think, so that that person could know how it feels to lose someone dear!
Kanu’ Motion
On the last adjourned date, Kanu brought a motion on notice (Kanu’s motion) inter alia, in Prayer 1, praying that the court should declare that the charges brought against him are non-existent, because they are founded upon laws that have been repealed or misapplied. The support for his assertion would have been Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) which prohibits the conviction of an individual for a criminal offence not described and whose punishment isn’t in a written law enacted by the National Assembly, State House of Assembly or subsidiary legislation, if Section 36(12) had indeed, been applicable to Kanu. Alas, Section 36(12) is inapplicable.
If Kanu still had Counsel representing him in his case, they would have easily explained to him that, even if the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 (TPA 2013) which Kanu was prosecuted under has been repealed, Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2022 (TPA 2022) saves the proceedings of his case, as it provides that where, inter alia, court proceedings have been commenced under a repealed Act before the enactment of the TPA 2022, they may be continued and enforced, as if the TPA 2022 hadn’t been made! It is also trite law that where a Defendant is brought to trial under an erroneous charge, the charge can be amended anytime before judgement, and the Defendant must plead to the amended charge. See Sections 216-222, particularly 216 & 217 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA). See the case of Ede v State (2017) LPELR-42834(CA) per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JCA (as she then was) on the procedure to be followed in amending a charge.
Again, Section 396(2) of ACJA provides that after a plea has been taken, a Defendant can raise an objection to the validity of a charge anytime before judgement, but such objection will only be taken with the substantive issues in the case, and the ruling on the objection delivered along with the judgement. Displaying egotistical and narcissistic tendencies, not just in his utterances during his outbursts, Kanu does the same in his motion, in Prayer 5, giving the Respondent 3 days file and serve a response to his motion and instructing them on what to write in their response, while ordering the trial Judge, Omotoso J, to deliver the ruling forthwith by a specific date. ‘Barrister’ Kanu obviously hasn’t studied ACJA!
Prayer 2 of Kanu’s motion in which he refers to the Criminal Code Act 2004 (CCA), Customs and Excise Management Act 2004 (CEMA) and TPA 2013 as non-existent or repealed, and therefore, leaving no statutory basis for his prosecution, again, this prayer is misconceived. This issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in FRN v Nnamdi Kanu (Supra) per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, Page 33-34, where the Apex Court held that CEMA and TPA 2013 are “extant and existing laws which provide for, or under which the offences in the counts of the charge retained by the trial court are punishable or punished. The offences, once more, are recognised, cognisable and ground in extant and existing laws in force in Nigeria”. It appears that ‘Barrister’ Kanu’s motion is now praying the Federal High Court to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court, and decide otherwise! In Oyelaran 1, Oloro of Oro & Anor v Olayioye & Ors (2013) LPELR-20502(CA) per Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JCA (as he then was), the Court of Appeal held thus: “It goes without saying that, the Supreme Court, being at the zenith of judicial ladder in Nigeria, its decisions enjoy the monopoly of finality in any proceedings in the Nigeria legal system. This right is donated and ordained by the provision of Section 235 of the Constitution, as amended”.
Conclusion
It is obvious that ‘Barrister’ Kanu’s motion about the validity of the charges brought against him is baseless, misconceived, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process. Kanu’s motion is tantamount to praying the Federal High Court, to overrule and reverse the decision of the Supreme Court that remitted his case back for trial! Tah! This is an ‘abomination’ in law. The decision of the Supreme Court, is final. See the famous words of Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa, JSC in Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya & Anor 1989 3 N.W.L.R. Part 109 Page 250 at 274: “We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final”. Or is Kanu’s drama, from taking over his own defence in such a serious matter, to his empty motion, to his outbursts and insults to the court and Counsel, supposed to be diversionary tactics, to hide the fact that he may have no defence to the charges that have been brought against him? Or a feeble attempt to frustrate the case, hoping that Sowore and Co who are advocating for his release, will succeed? Let’s wait and see. Kanu’s matter has been adjourned to November 20, 2025 for judgement.
