No Sit-At-Home As Court Rules On Kanu’s N25bn Rendition Damages Oct 27

---

By Adadainfo

There will not be sit-at-home on 27th Oct, 2022 as the Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia, Abia State, delivers judgement in a suit filed by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu against the federal government over his alleged extra-ordinary rendition by Nigeria’s security forces from Kenya to Nigeria last year.

The suit was instituted by Kanu’s special counsel, Barr Aloy Ejimakor, on behalf of Kanu, who is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra. Ejimakor’s earlier suit on Kanu’s alleged jumping bail in 2017 went in favour of Kanu.

Barr Ejimakor, in a release on Wednesday, said despite the Court of Appeal’s ruling last Thursday, which discharged Kanu, there were other issues to be addressed by the court on 27 October.

According to him, “Despite the Court of Appeal judgment [of 13th Oct which discharged Kanu], the Federal High Court, Umuahia, will still proceed with its own judgment on 27th October, 2022 as was previously scheduled. My office has not received, and we do not expect to receive any notice from the court that the judgment has been adjourned.

“Despite the common presence of extraordinary rendition, the issues and reliefs before the Court of Appeal in Abuja are markedly different from the issues and reliefs pending judgment before the Federal High Court, Umuahia.

“The sole reason for the common presence of extraordinary rendition in both cases is because I had, as far back as August 2021, taken it before the state High court in Umuahia and later to the Federal High Court.

“In summary, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja considered the narrow issue of the impact of extraordinary rendition on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja to subject Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to trial.”

Recall that Ejimakor had approached the Federal High Court, Umuahia, to declare that Kanu’s arrest in Kenya is illegal, and that the federal government’s ‘enforced disappearance of the applicant for eight days and their refusal to produce the applicant before a Kenyan court for the purpose of applicant’s extradition amount to infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter’.

He is further seeking declaration that, “The detention of the applicant in a non-official secret facility in Kenya and the torture of the applicant in Kenya by the respondents’ agents is illegal, and amount to infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right against unlawful detention, torture and to fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter).

“A declaration that pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Charter, the expulsion (or extraordinary rendition) of the applicant from Kenya to Nigeria by the respondents without a decision taken in accordance with the law of Kenya is unconstitutional as guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.”

The suit further seeks the court to declare that ‘any criminal prosecution of the applicant the purpose of which the respondents unlawfully expelled the applicant from Kenya to Nigeria is illegal, and amounts to infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter’.

Other prayers are “An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from taking any further step in any criminal prosecution of the applicant enabled by the said unlawful expulsion of the applicant from Kenya to Nigeria,” as well as an order “mandating and compelling the respondents to forthwith restitute or otherwise restore the applicant to his liberty, same being his state of being as of 19th June, 2021; and to thereupon repatriate the applicant to his country of lawful domicile (to wit: the United Kingdom) to await the outcome of any formal request the respondents may file before the competent authorities in Britain for the lawful extradition of the applicant to Nigeria.”

The suit is also demanding N25,000,000,000.00 damages from the respondents as well as an apology letter published in three national dailies.