Barr Ejimakor’s reply to Malami who stated that Nnamdi Kanu be not released

Following the ruling of the Court of Appeal to release Nnamdi Kanu, Abubakar Malami is of the opinion that Nnamdi KANU should remain imprisoned.

Reacting to Malami’s claim, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, one of Kanu’s lawyers has writen an open letter in disagreement of the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, Abubakar Malami’s stand, where he said the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Kanu, may not be released despite the Appeal Court’s ruling.

Recall on the 13th of October 2022,/the Court of Appeal in Abuja on declared as the abduction of the Biafra nation agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, from Kenya to Nigeria unlawful and illegal, thereby quashing the entire terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

The Court held that the Federal Government breached all local and international laws by the forceful rendition of Kanu to Nigeria, thereby making the terrorism charges against him incompetent and unlawful.

However, Malami is still of the opinion that Kanu should not be released despite the Appeal Court’s ruling, stating that the Federal Government would pursue other charges against Kanu.

In response to Malami’s position, Barrister Ejimakor in a statement titled “My reaction to AGF Malami’s position on the Court of Appeal judgment regarding Nnamdi Kanu”, said no new charges can stick against Kanu and Malami is very wrong.

His statement read: “The position of AGF Malami on the Court of Appeal judgment regarding Nnamdi Kanu is flatly wrong and it is perverse to boot

“If the FG refuses or stalls on releasing Kanu solely because it desires to levy further or new charges, it will amount to a burgeoning holding charge which is impermissible in our jurisprudence.

“Further, no new charges can stick against Kanu because, in the present circumstance, the extraordinary rendition is an abiding factor that has created a permanent barrier to his prosecution.

Related: Nnamdi Kanu, Free at Last!

“Keep in mind that the extant trial of Kanu could never have proceeded had he not been illegally renditioned. So, it is not legally possible to lose jurisdiction in the extant charges and at once obtain jurisdiction in the next round of charges.

“The judgment of the Court of Appeal has therefore grandfathered a continuing lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction that will, in the interim, be very hard to overcome.
“Thus, before the levying of any new charges can have a toga of legality or chances of conferring prosecutorial jurisdiction, Kanu has to be released first. Anything to the contrary will be nugatory.