Abuja, NIGERIA — The Supreme Court on Friday reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquittal of leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, on the case of treason against him
The apex court held that although he was illegally brought back to Nigeria from Kenya when he jumped bail, that development could not have divested the trial court of the jurisdiction to continue his trial.
The court, in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel of Justices, acknowledged that FG acted “irresponsibly” when it forcefully brought Kanu back to the country from Kenya, against all known laws.
It, however, held that it was not enough to divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to continue with the case.
According to the Supreme Court, there is no legislation in the country that stripped the trial court of the jurisdiction to go ahead with Kanu’s case, despite the illegal action that FG took against him.
In the judgement that was prepared by Justice Garba Mohammed but read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court held that the remedy open for Kanu was for him to institute a civil action against the government.
The court, however, stated that the Federal Government must be conscious of its image, both locally and internationally, even as it knocked the trial court for revoking Kanu’s bail after he escaped to save his life following the invasion of his home by security agents
Following ruling, his team of lawyers habe revealed the next line of action that they will take.
Speaking to newsmen after the ruling Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, said that it is sad that the apex court decided to uphold the federal government’s appeal on the judgement of the Court of Appeals, but that the Supreme Court also said that the invasion of his home and the way he was arrested and extradited to Nigeria were unlawful.
Speaking about their next line of action, Ejimakor said, “The court has remitted the case to the Federal High Court to deal with it in line with the rulings it made. The ruling of the Supreme Court today was in part disappointing and in part satisfactory. A lot of people might say it is a bit ambiguous.
“We are going to properly apply for the certified true copies of what the justice stated in court today. But some things that he made clear were that Nnamdi Kanu was enjoying his bail when his house was invaded and that was wrong.”
Ejimakor said that sending the case back to the Federal High Court is called remission, and that it usually goes with instructions. He said that they don’t know what those instructions are because they are yet to have the certified true copies of the judgment and the judgment order.