Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted permission to the Federal Government to submit nine new grounds of appeal to prevent Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, from being released from detention.
The supreme court granted FG’s request to include the new grounds in its October 28, 2022, amended notice of appeal.
The decision was made in response to an application made by a government lawyer named Mr. Tijani Gadzali, SAN, who also sought an adjournment to respond to Kanu’s request to be moved from the DSS detention facility to the Kuje Correctional Centre.
Gazzali informed the court that he would require additional time to submit a counter-affidavit in opposition to Kanu’s request.
As a result, the case was put on hold until May 11 by a five-member Supreme Court panel led by Justice Inyang Okoro for a definitive hearing.
It should be recalled that on October 13, 2022, the Abuja Court of Appeal issued a ruling directing Kanu’s release from custody.
The appellate court also overturned a 15-count terrorism charge that the FG had filed against Kanu in front of the Federal High Court in Abuja in a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges.
The court stated that it was satisfied that the FG had flagrantly broken all known laws when it brought Kanu back to Kenya to continue his trial.
It concluded that the trial court lacked the authority to continue Kanu’s trial because of the Nigerian government’s arbitrary use of power.
However, dissatisfied with the verdict, the FG appealed to the Supreme Court and asked the appellate court to hold off on enforcing the judgment until the appeal’s outcome was known.
Supplication for Kanu’s delivery
In the mean time, at the continued procedures regarding this situation, yesterday, Kanu’s legitimate group drove by Mike Ozekhome, SAN, and Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor, drew the consideration of the peak court to an application looking for the arrival of their client on bail, forthcoming the finish of the knowing about the allure.
Due to his deteriorating health, Ozekhome stated that his client needed to be transferred from the DSS’s custody to a location where he could receive appropriate medical care.
As a result, he requested that the substantive appeal and all pending applications be heard more quickly.
Kanu had before asked the pinnacle court to strike out FG’s allure against his delivery.
In particular, he requested that the supreme court issue an order “striking out and/or dismissing the Respondent’s Appeal No: SC/CR/1361/2022, “for lack of diligent prosecution,” and an order authorizing the hearing of his own cross-appeal.
In accordance with Section 6 (1) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Direction 2013, the IPOB leader argued that FG had only ten days to file and serve him with its brief of argument upon service of the record of appeal.
He also argued that the Supreme Court Rules, as amended in 2014, Orders 2 and 6 (Rule 9) gave him the authority to seek the dismissal of FG’s appeal for lack of diligent prosecution.
“Parties were served with the record of appeal since November 2, 2022,” he claims.
“The Respondent has failed to submit its Appellant’s Brief within the ten (10) days required by this Honourable Court’s Fast Track Rules.
“The purpose of this Honourable Court’s Rules and Practice Directions is to provide fair, impartial, and expeditious administration of criminal appeals, especially in relation to offenses of terrorism, rape, kidnapping, corruption, money laundering, and human trafficking,” the respondent was not diligent in prosecuting the appeal.
“The lower court granted the Respondent’s application for stay of execution of the lower court’s judgment on the 28th day of October 2022, relying on the Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondent, and consequently stayed the execution of its judgment delivered on the 13th of October 2022, which discharged the Applicant and prohibited his further detention.”
“Due to the pendency of the instant appeal, the Applicant, who was discharged by the lower court on the 13th of October 2022, is still in the custody of the Appellant/Respondent’s State Security Service (SSS), where he has been held in solitary confinement since the 29th day of June 2021. The Respondent, which obtained an order of stay of execution of the judgment of the lower court on the basis of this appeal, has not demonstrated any good faith
“The Applicant’s right to liberty was stayed by the lower court due to the pendency of the Respondent’s abandoned appeal,” the court wrote. “Striking out and/or dismissing the Respondent’s appeal will serve the best interest of justice and a fair trial.”
“The Respondent has been properly served with the Applicant’s Cross-Appellant’s brief.”
“Setting the Applicant’s cross-appeal for hearing is in the interest of justice and a fair trial.”
Kanu added, “The Respondent which is not desirous of prosecuting its appeal, will not be prejudiced by the grant of the immediate application.”
Ohanaeze Ndigbo reminds President Muhammadu Buhari and his government that no condition is permanent in response to the Supreme Court’s permission for the Federal Government to present nine additional grounds of appeal against Kanu’s release.
Meanwhile, Ohanaeze Ndigbo’s spokesperson, Dr. Alex Chidozie Ogbonnia, stated that the Federal Government ought to be aware that the Buhari administration will soon end and a new one will be inaugurated, which could alter the entire scenario.
“Buhari ought to be aware that he is leaving and a different person is entering, and it will be a different game;” therefore nothing is eternal,” Ogbonnia stated.