Kanu not acquitted, still has case to answer – AGF Malami

Breaking: Appeal Court stops execution of judgment releasing Nnamdi Kanu Breaking: Appeal Court stops execution of judgment releasing Nnamdi Kanu

The Attorney -General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), has clarified last that the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, was not acquitted by the Court of Appeal.

He said the appellate court only decided a single issue that borders on rendition.

Advertisement

The AGF said Kanu has other pre-rendition cases to answer.

Malami made the clarifications in a statement through his Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations, Dr. Umar Jibrilu Gwandu.

Advertisement

The statement said: “The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has received the news of the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the trial of Nnamdi Kanu.

Advertisement

“For the avoidance of doubt and by the verdict of the court, Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted.

“Consequently, the appropriate legal options before the authorities will be exploited and communicated accordingly to the public.

Advertisement

“The decision handed down by the Court of Appeal was on a single issue that borders on rendition.

“Let it be made clear to the general public that other issues that predates rendition on the basis of which Kanu jumped bail remain valid issues for judicial determination.

Advertisement

“The Federal Government will consider all available options open to us on the judgment on rendition while pursuing determination of pre-rendition issues.”

It will be recalled that the court of appeal had earlier in the day on Thursday struck out the 7-count charges preferred against the leader of the Indigenous People Of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, on grounds that the lower court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Advertisement

The appellate court held that Mr. Kanu having been extradited from Kenya without following the extradition rules was flagrant disobedience of the rules and a clear violation of his rights.

This is because there was no denial by the respondents in the appeal to the submissions of Mike Ozekhome counsel to Mr. Kanu that his client, the appellant, was extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya.

Advertisement

The appellate court held that the failure of the respondents to respond to the averments of the appellants’ counsel means they conceded to the submissions of the appellant.

The appellate court also held that the lower court failed to examine the findings of the prosecution as they would not have tried Kanu if he was not been illegally brought to the country.

Advertisement

The court, therefore, held that the lower court has no jurisdiction to entertain the 7-count charge alleged to have been committed by Kanu, before his extraordinary rendition from Kenya.

Advertisement

leave a reply