The lawyer noted that in summary, the case in Umuahia borders on fundamental rights, whereas the judgment in Abuja bordered on jurisdiction.
By Jeffrey Agbo
Aloy Ejimakor, one of the lawyers of leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu, has said that the judgment of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State on the extraordinary rendition of Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria would go on as scheduled.
In a press release on Wednesday, Ejimakor said the statement was necessary following enquiries he has been getting from the media and others on whether the judgment set for October 27 in Umuahia would still hold considering the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja on October 13.
Ejimakor added that the issues and reliefs before the Court of Appeals in Abuja are markedly different from the issues and reliefs pending judgment before the Federal High Court, Umuahia.
He said, “To be sure, 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. Conversely, the issues or prayers before the Federal High Court, Umuahia are many and different from the narrow issue of jurisdiction decided in the Abuja judgment.
“For ease of reference, I will reproduce below the prayers pending before Umuahia and which were not specifically and fundamentally considered or captured by the judgment in Abuja. They are:
“1, A DECLARATION that the arrest of the Applicant in Kenya by the Respondents’ agents without due process of law is arbitrary, and the Respondents’ enforced disappearance of the Applicant for eight (8) days and their refusal to produce the Applicant before a Kenyan Court for the purpose of Applicant’s extradition is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amount to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against arbitrary arrest, to his personal liberty and to fair hearing as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.
“2, A 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, unlawful, unconstitutional 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).
“3, 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 illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing and not to be expelled from a State Party to the Charter except by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.
READ ALSO:
Nnamdi Kanu exceedingly overjoyed with Appeal Court ruling – Lawyers
“4, A DECLARATION that any criminal prosecution of the Applicant the purpose of which the Respondents unlawfully expelled the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional 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.
“5, 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.
“6, 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.
“7, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the Respondents to issue an official Letter of Apology to the Applicant for the infringement of his fundamental rights; and publication of said Letter of Apology in three (3) national dailies.
“8, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the Respondents to pay the sum of N25,000,000,000.00 (Twenty-Five Billion Naira) to the Applicant, being monetary damages claimed by the Applicant against the Respondents jointly and severally for the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, property and other damages suffered by the Applicant as a result of the infringements of Applicant’s fundamental rights by the Respondents.”
The lawyer noted that in summary, the case in Umuahia borders on fundamental rights, whereas the judgment in Abuja bordered on jurisdiction.
“In conclusion, as the public has been previously informed by my clients, there is no Sit-at-home on the judgment day of 27th October, 2022. Please be guided accordingly,” he added.
