Tag: Appeal Court

2023 Elections: INEC reinstates all PDP candidates in Ogun state

In accordance to the Appeal Court that set aside the sacking of all the candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has relisted all the candidates of the party.

INEC has released an updated list with all the People’s Democratic Party candidates appearing on the list.

The Ogun state PDP Candidate Ladi Adebutu and his deputy Adekunle Akinlade top the list of the party’s representative for the 2023 general election in the country.

Recall that INEC had earlier removed Adebutu and 39 other candidates of the PDP from its list of candidates in Ogun State, citing a court order.

An Abeokuta Federal High Court on September 27 ordered the electoral umpire to remove all PDP candidates after nullifying all its primary elections.

But, the Ibadan Appeal Court set aside the judgment on November 28, saying Segun Seriki, Taiwo Olabode, Samson Bamgbose and others did not have the locus standi to challenge the primaries as they were not aspirants.

In a statement titled, ‘Amended List of Final List of Candidates Pursuant To Court Orders’, INEC recalled that it published the final list of governorship candidates on October 4, 2022, in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

“After the said publication, the Commission was served Orders of Court in respect of the nomination of candidates for Governorship, Senatorial, House of Representatives and State House of Assembly elections.

“By virtue of the provision of Section 287 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Commission is bound to enforce the Orders of Court on the Nomination of candidates by political parties in the affected Constituencies,” it was said.

Consequently, INEC said the lists of candidates were amended pursuant to the Orders of Court served on it as of December 21, 2022, for upload on its website.

With this, all Ogun PDP candidates, including Olumde Aderinokun of Ogun Central, Toyin Amuzu of Abeokuta South Federal Constituency and others, have been reinstated as contestants in the 2023 polls.

December 23, 2022
Osun 2022: Appeal Court validates Oyetola’s nomination, dismisses PDP’s case

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the candidature and nomination of the governorship candidate of APC in the July 16 governorship election in Osun, Adegboyega Oyetola, and his running mate, Benedict Alabi.

Oyetola and Alabi are the immediate past governor and deputy governor of Osun.

The court set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite, nullifying the nomination of Oyetola and Alabi as the APC governorship and deputy governorship candidates.

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja had on Sept. 30 nullified the nomination of Oyetola and his running mate, Alabi.

The nullification was on the grounds that Gov. Mai Mala Buni of Yobe, who submitted their names to INEC, violated the provisions of Section 183 of the Constitution and Section 82 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

In his judgment, Justice Emeka Nwite agreed with the submissions of the Plaintiff’s counsel and declared as null and void the nomination of Oyetola and Alabi by the APC.

The PDP through its counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, had in the suit dragged Buni and four others before the court challenging the nomination and sponsorship of Oyetola and his running mate as the duly nominated candidates of the APC.

But the Appeal Court in Abuja, on Friday, in appeal no: CA/ABJ/CV/1099/2022 between Isiaka Adegboyega Oyetola & Anor v PDP & Ors, authenticated the nomination of the duo.

In allowing the appeal filed by Oyetola and his party, APC, the Court of Appeal held that the outcome of a governorship primary is a collective decision of a party through its congress.

It said constitutional challenge or deformity of any officer of the party cannot render it illegal.

The court, therefore, held that notwithstanding the defects in the letter forwarding the nomination and sponsorship of Oyetola and his running mate to INEC, the fact that they emerged from a valid primary cannot be ruled out.

It maintained that the defect of Buni signing the letter conveying the nomination of the appellants cannot be a ground to reject the results and desire of the party’s primary election.

Regarding the question of immunity of Buni, who submitted the nomination of the appellants to INEC, the court equally held that Buni cannot be sued because the immunity enjoyed by him protected him against civil and criminal suits.

The court questioned Nwite for his failure not to consider a classical precedent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Jegede v INEC before he arrived at his judgment.

It also awarded the cost of N200,000 in favour of the appellants.

December 3, 2022
BREAKING! Court of Appeal reinstates all PDP candidates in Ogun

The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan the Oyo state capital has set aside a judgment of the Federal High Court, Abeokuta, Ogun State, that sacked all candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun state and ordering fresh primary elections.

The Appeal court gave the judgment today in Ibadan.

Recall that Justice O O Oguntoyin of the high court, on 27th September, had ordered that the State Executive Committee of the PDP should conduct fresh primaries within 14 days.

However, in her judgment today in Ibadan, Justice Folasade Ojo of the appeal court ruled that the lower court was wrong in its judgment as only the National Working Committee (NWC) of the PDP is vested with the power to conduct primaries.

The PDP in Ogun is split into three factions with three different candidates claiming to be the governorship candidate of the party.

However, the party’s headquarters in Abuja led by National Chairman, Iyiorcha Ayu recognizes Ladi Adebutu as the governorship candidate of the party.

November 28, 2022
Appeal Court declares Binani APC Governorship candidate In Adamawa

The Appeal Court in Yola, Adamawa, has declared Sen. Aishatu Binani as the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in the state.

The court presided over by Justices Tani Hassan, Mistura Bolaji-Yusuf and James Abundaga respectively set aside the judgment of a Federal High Court which nullified the governorship primary and declared that APC has no candidate for the 2023 governorship election.

The justices ordered that the name of Binani be submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the flag bearer for the election

On Oct. 14, a Federal High court sitting in Yola, had nullified the governorship primary that produced Binani, declaring that the party had no candidate for the forthcoming governorship elections.

The case was filed by Malam Nuhu Ribadu, a former Chairman of the Economic Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), challenging the APC governorship primary over alleged irregularities, and demanding for fresh primaries.

Binani had scored 430 votes to defeat her closest opponent, Ribadu, who polled 288 votes in the election.

NAN reports that the Federal High Court judge, in that ruling, by Justice Abdulaaziz Anka held that the APC had no candidate for the 2023 governorship election in the state.

Anka also ordered Binani, who was earlier declared winner of the election to stop parading herself as the party’s candidate for the 2023 governorship election.

The court held that the APC governorship primary election held on May 26, was marred with irregularities such as over voting, and non compliance with the 2022 Electoral Act and the party’s constitution.

November 24, 2022
TARABA: Appeal Court shakes off Bwacha, Binani’s nullification as APC guber candidates

The Court of Appeal sitting in Yola has dismissed the High Court ruling nullifying Emmanuel Bwacha and Aishatu Binani elections as the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidates for Taraba and Adamawa states respectively.

The court on Thursday ordered that their names should be forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as APC governorship candidates for both states.

In September, Justice Simon Amobeda of a Federal High Court in Jalingo, the Taraba State capital, sacked Bwacha after a petition by an ex-aspirant, David Kente.

The judge had argued that it is not possible for all the primary results to have the same handwriting while the returning officer declared that no primary was held in the state at the police headquarters due to security threats.

The former Deputy Minority Leader of the Senate later appealed the judgment, and alleged that the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Taraba State is the major cause of the APC problems within the state.

Similarly, last month, a Federal High Court sitting in Yola nullified APC primary that produced Binani as the party’s governorship candidate for Adamawa.

Justice Abdulaziz Anka declared that the judgment was based on substantial evidence of non-compliance with the party guidelines and that of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

A former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nuhu Ribadu, who came second during the exercise, had dragged Binani and INEC before the high court, alleging vote buying and illegal delegates list at the primary conducted on May 27, 2022.

November 24, 2022
Nnamdi Kanu: Appeal Court clears air on Transfer of 21 Judges

The Court of Appeal says the transfer of 21 justices to various divisions has nothing to do with the judgment of the court that discharged and quashed the terrorism charges against the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

Contrary to some media reports, the appellate court said that the postings of 21 out of its 81 justices was a routine exercise aimed at reinvigorating the justice delivery of the court.

This is contained in a statement by the Chief Registrar of the Court, Malam Umar Bangari.

The appellate court said the three justices who delivered the Oct. 13 judgment that ordered the release of Kanu from detention were not transferred.

Bangaru said that only one justice out of the three that handled Kanu’s matter was affected by the transfer.

“The attention of the Court of Appeal has been drawn to a publication in the media on Oct. 24 with a caption “Nnamdi Kanu: 3 Justices on Appeal Court Panel Transferred.

“The publication in question conveyed the innuendo to the effect that the recent posting of justices of the Court of Appeal was in connection with or in response to the judgment of the Court of Oct.13 in Nnamdi Kanu versus the Federal Government.

“We wish to state categorically that the general posting of the justices of the Court of Appeal under reference was routine and aimed at reinvigorating the justice delivery system of the court.

“In fact, 21 out of 81 justices including 6 presiding justices of the court were affected by the general postings.

“It is therefore incorrect to insinuate that the justices who delivered the judgment in the Nnamdi Kanu appeal were the target of the routine posting exercise.”

The chief registrar said that the court had an open door policy of providing easy access to the media to make inquiries and seek clarification on any matter of interest to the media for the benefit of the general public.

October 25, 2022
Nnamdi Kanu: Appeal Court Justices transferred days after delivering judgment

Barely seven days after three Justices sat on the Court of Appeal panel that quashed the 15-count terrorism charge the Federal Government preferred against the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, they have been transferred from their various divisions.

It was gathered that the presiding Justice, Jummai Hanatu Sankey, who was hitherto in the Gombe Division of the court, has been moved to Awka Division, Justice Oludotun Adetope-Okojie who delivered the lead judgment, was transferred to Owerri, while the third member of the panel, Justice Ebiowei Tobi, was moved to Gombe.

A memo dated October 17, which was signed by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, stressed that the new posting for the justices was with immediate effect as they were expected to report to their new stations by October 21.

TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) recalls that delivering judgment in an appeal filed by Kanu, a three-member panel led by Justice Hanatu Sankey, in a unanimous judgment, held that the respondent, by not responding to the appellant’s submissions, conceded to the allegation that Kanu was forcefully renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria.

The judgment read by Justice Adedotun Adefope-Okijie held that it was necessary for the federal government to prove the legality of Kanu’s arrival to Nigeria.

The appellate court held that the respondent flouted the Terrorism Act and was also in violation of all known international conventions and treaties guiding the extradition process thus, breaching the rights of the defendant.

The court further held that having illegally and forcefully renditioned the appellant, the trial court is stripped of jurisdiction to continue to try Kanu.

The appellate court held that the federal government’s action “tainted the entire proceedings” it initiated against Kanu and amounted to “an abuse of criminal prosecution in general”.

“The court will never shy away from calling the Executive to order when it tilts towards executive recklessness. Therefore, the appeal has merit,” the appellate court held.

Arguing the appeal, Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, on Sept. 13, told the three-man panel that Kanu was first arraigned on December 23, 2015 and granted bail on April 25, 2017.

He explained further that agents of the federal government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code-named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s home town in September 2017, which forced him to escape out of the country, to Isreal, then London.

He recalled that on June 27 2021, “the federal government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria “in most cruel and inhuman manner”.

“On 29 June, 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the federal government, where he was re-arraigned.

“Following the appellant’s preliminary objection to the 15-count charge preferred against him by the federal government, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal Hight Court Abuja, on April 8, 2022, struck out 8 counts.

“Our humble submission is that the remaining seven counts ought not to be retained by the trial court because, before the time Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya, he was facing a five-count charge”.

Ozekhome submitted that going by section 15 of the Extradition Act, “Kanu is not supposed to be charged without the approval of Kenyan government.

“The remaining 7 counts, cannot stand, being filed illegally without following due process under the rule of specialty as envisaged under section 15 of the Extradition Act.

“Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, which were retained by the Federal High Court, were offences allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria.

“These allegations of rendition were never denied by the federal government and you cannot sustain the charge when you extradited the appellant without the approval of Kenyan authority.

In addition, Ozekhome argued that when charging for an offence, “you must mention the particulars and location where the office was committed.

“But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offence was allegedly committed.

Kanu’s lawyer contended that by section 45 (a) of the Federal High Court Act, with regard to the criminal charge, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.

More so, “Section 195 and 196 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), state that a charge must have a date, time, location etc.

He insisted that there was no need for the FHC to retain the remaining 7 counts, and therefore urged the panel to take over the charges and strike them out.

The senior lawyer also asked the appellate panel to hold that the respondent has not furnished the court with any prima facie case against the appellant for which he is being charged.

Reacting, the Federal Government’s lawyer, Mr David Kaswe urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.

He specifically prayed the appellate court review the April 8 ruling of the trial court which struck out only eight out of the 15-count charge.

Insisting that the charge FG entered against him had no basis in law, Kanu, in his appeal dated April 29 and marked CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, applied to be discharged and acquitted.

October 24, 2022
Nnamdi Kanu: Appeal Court reserves judgment in FG’s stay of execution application

The Court of Appeal in Abuja reserved judgment in the application by the Federal Government seeking to stay execution of the judgment that freed the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu.

The three-member panel of justices led by Justice Haruna Tsammani reserved judgment on Monday after listening to arguments from counsel.

Arguing on behalf of the Federal Government, Mr. David Kaswe told the court that the major ground of their application was on national security of the country.

He said the application for stay of execution was to allow for national security pending the hearing and determination of their appeal at the Supreme Court.

“If Kanu is released, he may not be available to face his charges in court because he had already jumped bail before.

“Releasing him will increase the state of insecurity in the South East.”

Kaswe urged the appellate court to grant the federal government’s application and not release Kanu.

Mr. Mike Ozekhome, (SAN) counsel to Kanu, on his part, opposed the application for stay of execution on the grounds that it was a ploy to over rule the judgment of the appellate court.

“My lords should not allow them because it will cause chaos and anarchy.

“The release of Kanu will bring peace to the South East, so there is no need to stay execution where there is no valid appeal,” Ozekhome said.

On the issue that Kanu had earlier jumped bail, Ozekhome argued that Kanu did not jump bail but escaped for his life when his house was evaded by the federal government.

Ozekhome also predicated his objection on the grounds that Kanu had a terminal illness and needed comprehensive medical attention outside of the Department of State Services (DSS) custody.

The senior lawyer prayed the court to dismiss the application for stay of execution saying that he would not ask for cost.

Earlier, the court had refused to grant the request of the Federal Government for adjournment but rather stood it down for counsel to peruse the necessary documents and argue their case.

Kaswe had complained that he was served with a counter affidavit by Ozekhome only on Friday.

The Appeal Court had on Oct. 13, voided the rendition of Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria and discharged him.

The appellate court voided the rendition of Kanu on account of breach of local and international laws.

The federal government not satisfied with this judgment said that it would explore every legal avenue to quash the judgment of the appellate court.

The government after appealing the appellate court’s judgment, filed a stay of execution on the grounds that releasing Kanu would not be in the interest of national security.

October 24, 2022
Kanu: Appeal Court’s order and Malami’s pontification – By Ehichioya Ezomon

Against the grain of widespread pleadings and expectation of concerned Nigerians, the Federal Government’s filed seven grounds of appeal to quash the October 13, 2022, Appeal Court’s judgment ordering the release of Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

Surely, the filing at the apex court is in keeping with the avowal of Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), that the government would consider all available options on the judgment, and pursue the determination of pre-rendition issues.

The three Justices of the Appeal Court had “discharged and acquired” Kanu of the entire treasonable felony and terrorism charges preferred against him since 2015.

Though an Abuja Federal High Court had dismissed eight of the amended 15-count charge, the remaining seven counts before the Court of Appeal in Abuja were on the alleged abduction of Kanu from Kenya in June 2021.

The Appeal Court’s ruling says: “By engaging in utter unlawful and illegal acts and in breach of its own laws in the instant matter, the Federal Government did not come to equity in clean hands and must be called to order.

“With appalling disregard to local and international laws, the Federal Government has lost the right to put the appellant on trial for any offence. (Emphasis mine).

“Treaties and Protocols are meant to be obeyed. No government in the world is permitted to abduct anybody without following due process of extradition.

“Nigeria is not an exception or excused. Nigeria must obey her own law and that of international, so as to avoid anarchy.”

On the basis of the above, the Appeal Court ordered the immediate release of Kanu from his long incarceration at the facility of the Department of State Services in Abuja.

It’s doubtful if Malami had a certified true copy – unless he’s availed in advance of the ruling – before pouring cold water on the verdict, arguing the court didn’t acquit Kanu.

Vowing government’s continued charges against Kanu, Malami, via an official spokesman, Umar Jibril Gwandu, said: “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.

“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 predate rendition on the basis of which Kanu jumped bail remain valid issues for judicial determination.

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

Some of the issues government pushes at the Supreme Court are:

*The Appeal Court erred by holding that, based on the rendition, the trial court has no jurisdiction to try Kanu * There’s no evidence led at the trial and appellate courts on the rendition

*The court misdirected itself by relying heavily on foreign decided cases on terrorism and human rights as against those of the criminal procedure in Nigeria

*The court erred by discharging Kanu on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 on terrorism charges retained by the trial court for want of jurisdiction

*The court was silent and closed its eyes to the issues that predate Kanu’s rendition.

Correspondingly, the Federal Government prays the Supreme Court to:

*Set aside the Appeal Court judgment, and restore the charges at the trial court

*Stay execution of the ruling until the final determination of its appeal

*Refuse Kanu bail, as he’s a “flight risk person.”

The government’s hasty appeal against the Appeal Court judgment represents a classical case of “the more you look, the less you see” – indicating an apparent resolve to keep Kanu out of circulation throughout the duration of the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari.

Kanu’s five counts peaked at 15 after he jumped bail in 2017 and was arrested in June 2021 in Kenya, and flown back to Nigeria at the behest of the government.

The trial Federal High Court in Abuja subsequently struck out eight of the charges, leaving seven counts, which Kanu appealed to the Appeal Court that trashed the charges.

Ipso facto, there’re no longer charges against Kanu, and government could only maintain a cause of action by appealing the Appeal Court judgment or initiating fresh and unknown charges against Kanu, and that would leave the realm of prosecution to persecution of the detainee.

But amid criticisms against government’s plan to sustain Kanu’s trial, Malami reportedly floated a “political solution” to the impasse: the South-East governors should go and beg Buhari to unconditionally release Kanu, as if the governors had instigated Kanu’s alleged offences.

If not as a tool of official blackmail, why should it be the governors’ burden to surety Kanu who, with members of the IPOB, had routinely blamed the governors for alleged connivance to scuttle the agitation for Biafra?

Recall that following Malami’s prior remarks, former Anambra Sate Governor Chukwuemeka Ezeife expressed readiness to “kneel or prostrate” for Buhari to free Kanu.

“If President Buhari wants me to kneel down, I’ll kneel down. If he wants me to prostrate, I’ll prostrate just for Nnamdi Kanu to be released,” Dr Ezeife had pledged in an interview on Arise News morning show on October 17.

He said the release of Kanu “will address protests, agitation and the sitting-at-home in the South-East,” adding that Igbo elders would welcome negotiation “to ensure Kanu’s release and peace in the South-East.”

In any case, South-East leaders, including the governors, had met Buhari – in Abuja or in the South-East during his visits – and written series of letters on the Kanu matter, with the president repeatedly telling them that his hands were tied by the legal web entangling the detainee.

In other words, were the courts to set Kanu free, Buhari and the Federal Government would’ve no justification to incarcerate him to face further charges or trial.

Alas, the opportunity of good faith came on October 13 via the Appeal Court ruling, which discharged Kanu from the remaining seven of 15 charges against him since 2015! But the authorities have shunned that window!

The Appeal Court dress-down of the government – for violating both its own and international laws, to breach Kanu’s fundamental human rights – would sober any administration to avoid further pontification.

So, rather than continue Kanu’s detention and trial, President Buhari should seize the lucky chance the Appeal Court ruling offers to redeem his administration’s image.

To act otherwise strengthens the allegation that Kanu’s ordeal is part of an “unfinished business” to marginalise the South-East for its aborted “Republic of Biafra” in 1967, and the resultant Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970. Government must dispel this alleged ill-motive against the people of the South-East!

*Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria.

October 24, 2022
How FG violated international treaties in Nnamdi Kanu’s extradition – Court ruling

The Court of Appeal on Thursday in Abuja quashed the terrorism charge brought against Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

Delivering judgment in an appeal filed by Kanu, a three-member panel led by Justice Hanatu Sankey, in a unanimous judgment, held that the respondent, by not responding to the appellant’s submissions, conceded to the allegation that Kanu was forcefully renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria.

The judgment read by Justice Adedotun Adefope-Okijie held that it was necessary for the federal government to prove the legality of Kanu’s arrival to Nigeria.

The appellate court held that the respondent flouted the terrorism Act and was also in violation of all known international conventions and treaties guiding extradition process thus, breaching the rights of the defendant.

The court further held that having illegally and forcefully renditioned the appellant, the trial court is stripped of jurisdiction to continue to try Kanu.

The appellate court held that federal government’s action “tainted the entire proceedings” it initiated against Kanu and amounted to “an abuse of criminal prosecution in general”.

“The court will never shy away from calling the Executive to order when it tilts towards executive recklessness. Therefore, the appeal has merit,” the appellate court held.

Arguing the appeal, Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, on Sept. 13, told the three man panel that kanu was first arraigned on December 23,2015, and granted bail on April 25, 2017.

He explained further that agents of federal government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s home town in September 2017, which forced him to escape out of the country, to Isreal, then London.

He recalled that on June 27 2021, “the federal government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria “in most cruel and inhuman manner”.

“On 29 June, 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the federal government, where he was rearraigned.

“Following the appellant’s preliminary objection to the 15-count charge preferred against him by the federal government , the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal Hight Court Abuja, on April 8, 2022, struck out 8 counts.

“Our humble submission is that the remaining seven counts ought not to be retained by the trial court because, before the time Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya, he was facing five-count charge”.

Ozekhome submitted that, going by section 15 of the Extradition Act, “Kanu is not supposed to be charged without the approval of Kenyan government.

“The remaining 7 counts, cannot stand, being filed illegally without following due process under the rule of specialty as envisaged under section 15 of the Extradition Act.

“Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, which were retained by the Federal High Court, were offences allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria.

“These allegations of rendition were never denied by the federal government and you cannot sustain the charge when you extradited the appellant without the approval of Kenyan authority.

In addition, Ozekhome argued that when charging for an offence, “you must mention the particulars and location where the office was committed.

“But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offence was allegedly committed .

Kanu’s lawyer contended that by section 45 (a) of the Federal High Court Act, with regards to criminal charge, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.

More so, “Section 195 and 196 of Administrattion of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), state that a charge must have date, time, location etc.

He insisted that there was no need for the FHC to retain the remaining 7 counts, and therefore urged the panel to take over the charges and strike them out.

The senior lawyer also asked the appellate panel to hold that the respondent has not furnished the court with any prima facie case against the appellant for which he is being charged.

Reacting, the Federal Government’s lawyer, Mr David Kaswe urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.

He specifically prayed the appellate court to review the April 8 ruling of the trial court which struck out only eight out of the 15-count charge.

Insisting that the charge FG entered against him had no basis in law, Kanu, in his appeal dated April 29 and marked CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, applied to be discharged and acquitted.

Kanu equally urged the appellate court to order his release on bail, pending the determination of his appeal.

Though the appeal was initially fixed for October 11, however, following an application the embattled IPOB leader filed for abridgement of time, the appellate court brought the matter forward for hearing.

October 13, 2022