1) Lower Court earlier Struck off 8 of the 13 amended terrorism related charges against Kanu.
2) At Appealed court, Kanu’s Lawyers pressed court to strike out the entire case as Kanu will not stand trial on a case where it happened remains a secret.
3) Kanu’s lawyer, Mike OzekhomeSan asked court to determine if the extraordinary rendition of Kanu followed international process?
4) Nigerian lawyer, D Kaswe argued the court to dismiss the appeal as Kanu was returned (kidnapped) to Nigeria through due process.
5) The panel (Judges) agreed with Kanu’s lawyer that where jurisdiction is raised, it is important to deal with it first as it will affect the entire case later.
6) The panel said “It is clear that where a court lacks jurisdiction to determine a matter, every other thing it does will amount to a nullity.
7) The panel added thst the FG remained silent on the allegation that Kanu was abducted from Kenya.
“I thus agree with Ozekhome”, and FG’s refusal to state where Kanu was extradited means it is “deemed conceded by the FGN.”
8] The panel quoting the United Nations Convention, that an Extradition request shall be in writing and accompanied by a warrant of arrest to the host territory where a suspect is domiciled.
9) The judges stated that it is clear thatFGN having removed Kanu from a country without trial constitutes a fundamental violation of his right,” and that Kanu can only be returned from another country after being subjected to judicial process in the host territory.
10) The Appeal court faulted the lower court, stating that the warrant of arrest only applies within Nigeria but extraordinary rendition without formal trial in a transferring country is an error.
11) Panel added that there is a duty for Nigeria to conform with international laws and legal framework.
RULING.
12) Nnamdi Kanu’s extradition by the federal government of Nigeria clearly violated international laws which it was bound to obey.
13) Since law enforcement cannot show how and where Kanu was extradited from, the whole proceeding is tainted.
14) The actions of the Nigerian government amounts to “executive recklessness”.
15) The appellate court ruled that the lower court failed to look at the facts of Nnamdi Kanu’s extradition.
16) I hold that the respondent is restrained from holding Kanu in detention as the lower court has no jurisdiction to try Kanu on the remaining charges.
17) NNAMDI Kanu’s appeal succeeds. Justice Nyako’s decision to go ahead with the trial, against Kanu are set aside and the defendant is discharged.
The three-man panel was led by Justice Jummai Hannatu, from Gombe Division.
