Nnamdi Kanu: My Reaction To AGF Malami’s position Appeal Court’s Judgment… Aloy Ejimakor
Barr. Aloy Ejimakor, Special Counsel to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB has described the position of AGF Malami on the Court of Appeal judgment regarding Nnamdi Kanu as “flatly wrong and it is perverse to boot”.
Ejimakor (Esq.) stated this in response to the position of the Attorney-General of the Federation, (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami on the Court of Appeal judgment delivered in favour of the freedom agitator.
Famousreporters.com reports that AGF Malami had, while reacting to the decision of the Appeal Court to discharge Kanu, in a statement signed by spokesperson, Dr. Umar Jibril Gwandu, said the appeal court only discharged Kanu and did not acquit him.
Speaking in the release, Malami pointed out that:
“The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has received the news of the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the trial of Nnamdi Kanu,” the statement said.
“For the avoidance of doubt and by the verdict of the Court, Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted.
“Consequently, the appropriate legal options before the authorities will be exploited and communicated accordingly to the public.
However, a statement which he titled: ‘My reaction to AGF Malami’s position on the Court of Appeal judgment regarding Nnamdi Kanu’, Barr. Ejimakor insisted that the extraordinary rendition of Kanu “is an abiding factor that has created a permanent barrier to his prosecution”, hence any further attempts to prosecute the former, whatsoever, would end in futility.
The statement read in detail:
My reaction to AGF Malami’s position on the Court of Appeal judgment regarding Nnamdi Kanu
From Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Special Counsel to Kanu
The position of AGF Malami on the Court of Appeal judgment regarding Nnamdi Kanu is flatly wrong and it is perverse to boot.
If the FG refuses or stalls on releasing Kanu solely because it desires to levy further or new charges, it will amount to a burgeoning holding charge which is impermissible in our jurisprudence.
Further, no new charges can stick against Kanu because, in the present circumstance, the extraordinary rendition is an abiding factor that has created a permanent barrier to his prosecution.
Keep in mind that the extant trial of Kanu could never have proceeded had he not been illegally renditioned. So, it is not legally possible to lose jurisdiction in the extant charges and at once obtain jurisdiction in the next round of charges.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal has therefore grandfathered a continuing lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction that will, in the interim, be very hard to overcome.
Thus, before the levying of any new charges can have a toga of legality or chances of conferring prosecutorial jurisdiction, Kanu has to be released first, with the implied assurances that he is free to travel overseas without any let or hindrance. Anything to the contrary will strain constitutionality. It will also generate more political tensions in the polity and possibly trigger a nasty diplomatic brawl with Britain.