No additional charges can be brought against Nnamdi Kanu, according to his attorney, who faults Malami

Posted by

Attorney General of the Federation Abubakar Malami’s assertion that the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, might not be released despite the Appeal Court’s decision has drawn criticism from one of Kanu’s attorneys, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor.

Recall that on Thursday, the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed the Federal Government’s whole terrorist case against Nnamdi Kanu and deemed the Biafra nation agitator’s kidnapping from Kenya to Nigeria unconstitutional and unlawful.

The Federal Government’s forced rendition of Kanu to Nigeria, the Court ruled, violated all national and international laws, rendering the terrorism charges against him inadmissible and illegal.

Malami has suggested, however, that Nnamdi Kanu, the head of the Indigenous People of Biafra, might not be freed in spite of the Appeal Court’s decision.

Malami stated that Kanu would face additional charges from the federal government.

However, responding to AGF Malami’s position on the Court of Appeal ruling concerning Nnamdi Kanu, Barrister Ejimakor said Malami was mistaken and that no new charges could be brought against Kanu in a statement titled “My reaction to AGF Malami’s position on the Court of Appeal ruling regarding Nnamdi Kanu.”

“The attitude of AGF Malami on the Court of Appeal judgment involving Nnamdi Kanu is flatly erroneous and twisted to boot,” he said in his statement.

“If the FG delays or refuses to release Kanu for the sole purpose of wanting to levy further or additional charges, it will amount to a growing hold charge, which is illegal under our law.

The exceptional rendition is a persistent factor that has established a permanent barrier to Kanu’s prosecution, thus no new accusations can be brought against him.

“Remember that without Kanu’s illegal rendition, the current trial could not have continued. Therefore, it is not conceivable legally to simultaneously gain jurisdiction over the new charges and lose jurisdiction over the ones that are currently pending.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal’s ruling grandfathered in a continuous lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction that will be difficult to overcome in the interim.

“Kanu must be released first before the filing of any fresh allegations can have a toga of legitimacy or chances of conferring prosecutorial jurisdiction. Any other statement will be meaningless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *