Supreme Court condemns govt’s mistreatment of Kanu, but refuses to free him

The Supreme Court on Friday condemned the Nigerian government’s forcible repatriation of Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya.

The court said the invasion of Mr Kanu’s home in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, Abia State, the revocation of his bail and forcible repatriation from Kenya were unlawful.

However, the court refused to accept the illegal actions of the government as a basis to free him from terrorism and treasonable felony charges he was brought to Nigeria to face.

Mr Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was forcibly repatriated from the East African country in June 2021 to Nigeria to continue his trial on the charges first filed against him in 2015.

The case stemmed from Mr Kanu’s campaigns for the secession of the five South-east states and parts of neighbouring states from Nigeria as an independent Biafra nation, which the Nigerian government said constituted offences of treasonable felony.

The government arrested the separatist leader in 2015. His case passed through different judges of the Federal High Court in Abuja before ending up before Binta Nyako, who granted him bail in 2017. The judge granted bail to Mr Kanu on health grounds.

But he later fled Nigeria, following the invasion of his Afara-ukwu home in Abia State by the Nigerian military in September 2017. With his case stalled due to his continued absence from court, the Federal High Court subsequently revoked his bail and ordered his arrest.

While he was abroad, his pictures and video clips which surfaced online suggested that he was, at various times, in Israel and mostly in the United Kingdom.

But in June 2021, the Nigerian government surprisingly brought him from Kenya and amended the charges against him to introduce counts of terrorism.

Delivering judgement on an appeal that Mr Kanu filed to challenge the proprietary of the charges, the Court of Appeal ruled that his forcible repatriation from Kenya invalidated the charges against him.

The court also ordered Mr Kanu’s unconditional release from detention.

Supreme Court says Kanu unfairly treated

But in its ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court faulted the Federal High Court’s revocation of the separatist leader’s bail.

“The revocation of the bail was totally wrong and unfair.

“Why did the government invade Mr Kanu’s home? It is totally unacceptable to use brute force.”

However, the five-member panel of the court affirmed that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the charges against Mr Kanu, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s decision which ruled that the trial court had lost jurisdiction to entertain the case on the grounds of the illegality of the defendant’s forcible repatriation from Kenya.

In the lead judgement prepared by Tijjani Abubakar and which was unanimously consented to by other members of the panel, the Supreme Court said evidence obtained through illegal means is admissible in court.

The court acknowledged that the IPOB leader’s arrest and repatriation from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 breached both local and international laws on extradition, but that was a valid reason to stop his trial

‘Buhari re-enacted Umaru Dikko’s abduction from UK’

The Supreme Court, in its ruling on the manner the federal government abducted Mr Kanu from Kenya, referenced the failed attempt by then Muhammadu Buhari-led military regime in the early 1980s to abduct an exiled Nigerian Second Republic minister, Umaru Dikko, in London and bring him to Nigeria.

“Nigeria barely recovered from the case of Umaru Dikko many years ago,” the lead judgement stated.

Thirty-six years after Mr Dikko’s failed abduction by Mr Buhari’s military junta, the civilian administration which Mr Buhari would later lead from 2015 to 2023 re-enacted the same abduction tactic which succeeded in Mr Kanu’s case.

While the circumstances of the IPOB leader’s arrest in Kenya remain unclear, Mr Dikko’s case is well documented and the full picture of the episode is public knowledge.

Mr Dikko, a transportation minister during former President Shehu Shagari’s administration, had fled to exile when Mr Buhari’s military government began to clamp down on the previous administration’s officials accused of embezzling public funds during their time in office.

He was captured in London in 1984 by agents working for the Nigerian government. His captors handcuffed him, drugged him and packed him in a crate with a doctor by his side maintaining a tube on his throat to keep him alive.

But he was fortunate when a vigilant British customs officer, Charles Marrow, in London foiled the kidnap. The failed abduction led to a diplomatic row between the Nigerian and UK governments.

Mr Dikko died in 2014 aged 77.

What next for Mr Kanu

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that Mr Kanu’s case file be remitted to the Federal High Court for trial.

At the Federal High Court, the judge, Ms Nyako, in April 2022, struck out eight of 15 charges against the IPOB leader.

Ms Nyako struck out eight of the charges in her ruling on Nnamdi Kanu’s preliminary objection, challenging the validity of the charges.

Mr Kanu was accused of various offences in the 15 counts, including treasonable felony and terrorism, offences he allegedly committed in the course of his separatist campaigns.

Ms Nyako ruled that Counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 were incompetent for not disclosing any valid offences against the defendant.

“In this instant preliminary objection application, I have read the counts and counts 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 have not disclosed any offence,” Mrs Nyako said.

She, however, ruled that Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,13 and 15 disclosed valid charges against Mr Kanu.

She asked the prosecution to proceed to trial on the remaining seven charges, ordering the prosecution to file fresh proof of evidence before 18 May 2022, the following hearing date.

PREMIUM TIMES reported that the judge validated the federal government’s repatriation of Mr Kanu from Kenya to face the charges pending against him in Nigeria.

Mr Kanu had pleaded not guilty to all the 15 amended charges.

Below are the full details of the seven sustained charges and the eight counts that were struck out by the court:

SUSTAINED CHARGES

The judge ordered that the case proceed to trial on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 15.

Five of the sustained charges have to do with alleged acts of terrorism, including professing to be a member and leader of IPOB, a proscribed organisation, issuing inciteful and deadly threats against individuals, and issuing directives, among others.

Count 15 has to do with the illegal importation of a radio transmitter he declared as used household items in violation of section 47 (2) (a) of the Criminal Code Act. Cap, C45 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

Count 1

The prosecution alleged that Mr Kanu, of Afara Ukwu, Umuhahia North Local Government Area of Abia State, as a member of and leader of proscribed IPOB sometimes in September 2021, committed an act of terrorism against Nigeria and its people by allegedly making a broadcast received and heard in Nigeria with intent to intimidate the population, threatened that the people would die and that the whole world would standstill. The offence is said to be punishable under section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2015.

Count 2

The prosecution accused him of committing “an act in furtherance of an act of terrorism” against Nigeria and its people made a broadcast received and heard in Nigeria within the jurisdiction of the court with intent to intimidate the population, issued a death threat against anyone who flouted his sit-at-home order.

Mr Kanu allegedly ordered whoever flouted the order should “write his/her will”, and as a result banks, schools, markets, shopping malls, and fuel stations domiciled in the eastern states of Nigeria must not open for business. Citizens, and vehicular movements, in the eastern states of Nigeria, the prosecution said, were grounded as a result of the sit-at-home order.

The prosecution said the offence is punishable under section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act (2013).

Count 3

The prosecution also alleged that “on diverse dates” between 2018 and 2021 within the jurisdiction of this court, Mr Kanu professed himself to be a member and leader of IPOB, a proscribed organisation in Nigeria.

This, the prosecution said was an offence contrary to and punishments under section 16 of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2015.

Count 4

M Kanu also, allegedly, on diverse dates between 2018 and 2021, made a broadcast received and heard in Nigeria inciting members of the public in Nigeria in furtherance of an act of terrorism against Nigeria and its people to hunt and kill Nigerian security personnel.

The offence, according to the prosecution, is punishable under section 1(2)(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013.

Count 5

Mr Kanu, also on diverse dates between 2018 and 2021, allegedly broadcasted furtherance of an act of terrorism against Nigeria and its people, received and heard in Nigeria in furtherance of an act of terrorism, inciting members of the public in Nigeria to hunt and kill families of Nigeria security personnel.

The offence is said to be punishable under 1(2)(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013.

Count 13

Mr Kany also alleged between 2018 and 2021 made a broadcast received and heard in Nigeria with the intent to incite violence, in furtherance of an act of terrorism against Nigeria and its people, directed members of the public to burn down every federal facility in Lagos resulting in major economic loss to the federal government.

The alleged offences, the prosecution says, are punishable under section 1(2) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment) Act 2013.

Court 15

The prosecution also alleged that on diverse dates between March and April 2015, Mr Kanu was illegally imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulisluzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, a radio transmitter known as Tram 50L concealed in a container of used household items which he declared as used household items.

The alleged offence was said to be contrary to section 47(2)(a) of the Criminal Code Act CapC45 Laws of the Federation.