The family of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has renewed their call for the relevant legal authorities in the country to respect the court order releasing Kanu and to effect the release.
The family spoke through Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emma Kanu, regarding the Attorney General of the Federation’s failure to comply with the Appeal Court’s order discharging the IPOB leader.
“The last time we checked, the Appeal Court Abuja Division is a competent court of law in Nigeria. So what has changed between the time the order of discharge was handed down and today? A Federal High Court ruled that the kidnapping of Kanu and his detention was unlawful and arbitrary.
Does it mean the Federal High Court that handed down this judgement is not a competent court of law in Nigeria?” the family queried.
The family therefore urged the AGF to, as a matter of equity, do the needful and release him.
“We would like to draw the attention of the AGF to 4 critical laws in Nigeria which make the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu impossible.
“Section 2 (3F) of the Terrorism Prevention & Prohibition Act 2022 states very clearly and unambiguously that any attempt to conduct a Kangaroo trial of a victim of kidnapping in defiance of the explicit provisions of the African Charter is committing an act of terrorism.
This is a subsisting Nigerian law which no amount of judicial somersault can overcome.
“The same Terrorism Prevention & Prohibition Act 2022 at Section 2 (3) (g) makes the kidnapping of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu – as affirmed by the Supreme Court – an offence and an act of terrorism.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court explicitly called the act of the Federal Government of Nigeria criminal.
“We refer you once again to Section 15 of another Nigerian law known as the Extradition Act, which, to the exclusion of any other law in Nigeria, makes it very clear that insofar as Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is concerned, only a Kenyan court can certify any charges triable in Nigeria.
This is universally known as the Doctrine of Speciality.”
“AGF, these laws, which were written in simple understandable English, were made and passed by the National Assembly of Nigeria, which is the only organ constitutionally charged with law-making, not any court of law. Law courts interpret but are not lawmakers.
No court can overturn these laws as long as they are extant and subsisting,” they said.
Fagbemi, while responding to questions after presenting President Tinubu’s scorecard recently, said the current administration declined to drop the charge against Kanu because the allegations against him were very serious, insisting that his fate would only be determined by the court.
ALSO READ: Esan North-East: We did not suspend Abure — LP Chairman
The AGF maintained that since the matter is already pending in court, the law should be allowed to run its course.
The AGF further argued that the charge against Kanu was “remarkably different” from the charge against the convener of the #RevolutionNow# protest, Omoyele Sowore, which his office withdrew, adding, “Sowore and Kanu are not the same. When it comes to the first one, I did not have difficulty to say, go. But, I have difficulty with the second one.”
