Stephen Ukandu, Umuahia
Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has challenged law students in any Nigerian university to find any judicial authority in support of stay of execution in criminal proceeding, and collect N1 million from him.
The challenge was contained in a press statement issued by his legal team Thursday in Abuja, and signed by Aloy Ejimakor, Nnaemeka Ejiofor, Maxwell Opara,VJude Okey Ugwuanyi, Patrick Agazie, Mandela Umegborogu, and Magnus Ikenna Nwangwu.
Kanu’s lawyers expressed disappointment that another panel of a Court of Appeal stayed the execution of his acquittal by the same court, describing the act as a judicial aberration.
The statement read: “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu pledges to give any law student in any Nigerian University the sum of One Million (N1, 000, 000.00) Naira if such student finds any precedent on stay of execution in criminal proceedings where an acquitted person is by such order restrained from enjoying his freedom.
“It is an illegality that would hunt Nigeria for as long as life endures. But then, it was granted because Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is of Igbo descendants and must suffer, notwithstanding what the law says.”
It further read:”Recall that Onyendu was remanded on the purport that Onyendu jumped bail. By the decision of the Court of Appeal, all the charges for which Onyendu is being tried were quashed for want of jurisdiction and in violation of the Extradition Acts of both Kenya and Nigeria.
“Justice Tsamani of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division unlawfully granted an Order staying the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. This order was illegally granted and never in the history of any country’s jurisprudence had an acquitted person been denied his release from detention by way of stay of execution.”
Kanu’s legal team further expressed disappointment that five months after Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja recused herself from the IPOB Leader’s trial, the case was yet to be re-assigned to another Judge.
“On the 24th day of September, 2024, Justice B. F. M Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja made an order recusing herself from the case of terrorism leveled against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu before her Court and sent the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for re-assignment to another Judge of the Court. It is getting to Five (5) months since the Court made the Order. There is no such reassignment by the Chief Judge till date.
“To the Federal Government of Nigeria, in so far as Mazi remains in DSS custody, trial can go to hell. Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has since the 23rd day of December, 2024 written to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for a reassignment of the case but till date, nothing has happened.
“On the part of the Prosecution, no effort whatsoever is made for the reassignment of the case to another judge. We all know how many judges are in Federal High Court, Abuja and who are eminently qualified and competent to hear the case on the merit but then, it is either Justice Binta hears the case or Mazi Nnamdi languishes in DSS detention facility indefinitely.
“All appeals against the terse decisions of the trial court are never fixed for hearing and every effort made by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his legal team to get dates for the hearing of the appeal is thwarted by the prosecution and the Court of Appeal.”
The lawyers further debunked misconception in some quarters that Kanu jumped bail, arguing that a Supreme Court judgment had ruled to the contrary in his favour.
“On the part of the Supreme Court, Onyendu did not jump bail but ran away from the treacherous acts of Operation Python Dance to save his life and physical well-being.
“At Pages 10 and 11 of the Supreme Court findings and decisions, it was held that “The respondent was on bail and therefore in the custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers of the appellant, causing him to flee from his home and country to secure his life. In the face of such an attack, it was reasonable for him to flee to secure his life and physical well-being. That is what any normal and reasonable human being would do in that circumstances to preserve his life and physical well-being.”
