Stephen Ukandu, Umuahia
The family of the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has expressed rage over the comments by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, on why the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu-led administration did not drop the treason charge against the IPOB Leader.
Kanu’s family accused the AGF of desperation to convict the IPOB Leader even when he is aware that Kanu’s kidnap and extraordinary rendition from Kenya amounted to state terrorism.
Recall that the AGF had while presenting President Tinubu’s scorecard on Friday in Abuja, said the President decided not to drop the charge against Kanu because the allegations against him were very serious.
According to Fagbemi, Kanu’s fate can only be determined by the court.
He maintained that since the matter is already pending in court, the law should be allowed to run its course.
The AGF 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.
“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,” he said.
Recall that both Kanu and Sowore were arrested by former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The Buhari-led Federal Government charged Kanu with treasonable felony, while Sowore was, among other things, accused of attempting to overthrow the government through unconstitutional means.
But shortly after assuming office as the AGF, Fagbemi, wrote to the Federal High Court in Abuja to terminate further hearing on the charge against Sowore.
On the other hand, the AGF briefed a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a seasoned prosecutor, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, to take over Kanu’s prosecution.
Disappointed by the AGF’s position, Kanu’s family in a swift response, accused the Federal Government of bias against Kanu.
Kanu’s family wondered why the AGF chose to be silent on Sunday Igboho, a Yoruba self determination agitator, while showing much interest prosecuting the IPOB Leader.
The family reminded AGF that the court had already ordered for Kanu’s immediate and unconditional release, an order the Federal Government refused to honour.
The family in a statement by Prince Emmanuel Kanu, accused the Federal government of bias in Kanu’s prosecution, challenging the AGF to explain why the Federal Government is unwilling to complying with court orders when they favour the IPOB Leader.
The statement read in full: “Mr AGF Fagbemi, the Appeal Court discharged Mazi Nnamdi Kanu 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 the kidnapping of MNK and detention as 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 fact that the AGF needs to bear in mind is that there seems to be a particular set or type of judge they want to hear this matter outside the protection of the rule of law, which will never happen in this case. We would like to advert the mind of the AGF to four critical laws in Nigeria which makes the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu impossible.
“1. 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 kidnaping in defiance of the explicit provisions of the African Charter is commiting an act of terrorism. This is a subsisting Nigerian law which no amount of judicial somersault can overcome.
“2. 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.
“3. We refer you once again to Section 15 of another Nigerian law known as the Extradition Act to the exclusion of any other law in Nigeria, makes it very clear that in so far 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.
“We know there is an overwhelming financial incentive to secure the sham conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu by every means necessary, even if it means the destruction of the basic foundations of common law criminal jurisprudence in Nigeria.
“You may try but we can assure you that it won’t be easy for you. Why are you silent on the issue of Igboho the Yoruba self determination agitator?”
Kanu has remained in the Abuja headquarters of the Department of State Services, DSS, since June 2021 following his extraordinary rendition from Kenya.
