IPOB: Nigerian government tells supreme court that Nnamdi Kanu poses a flight risk

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is allegedly a flight risk, according to the Federal Government.

The FG submitted seven reasons for appeal against the October 13 Court of Appeal decision that Kanu was released.

It requested that the verdict be overturned and that the trial court resume hearing the case against the respondent.

The government is also requesting a stay of execution of the court’s decision under Justice Jummai Sankey’s supervision while its appeal is heard and decided. The government makes this request in a motion on notice in support of the appeal, citing the IPOB leader’s flight risk.

The Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar, Assistant Chief State Counsels D. Kaswe and A. Aluko, and Senior State Counsel G. Nweze, Department of Public Prosecution, Federal Ministry of Justice, all signed the notice of appeal dated October 18.

The appellant claimed that due of “the unusual rendition of the respondent,” the appeal court erred in law when it determined that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try Kanu.

The Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar, Assistant Chief State Counsels D. Kaswe and A. Aluko, and Senior State Counsel G. Nweze, Department of Public Prosecution, Federal Ministry of Justice, all signed the notice of appeal dated October 18.

The appellant claimed that due of “the unusual rendition of the respondent,” the appeal court erred in law when it determined that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try Kanu.

It stated, “There was no evidence led by the respondent before the court of the first instance and indeed before the court below to show how he was allegedly abducted and rendered to Nigeria as required by Section 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011 since he alleged that he was abducted without following due process of law.”

The appellant also contended that the court below erred when it held that the executive arm must not be allowed to benefit from the abduction of the respondent “when in fact and by its judgment, the respondent was allowed to benefit from his illegality of disobeying the orders of the court when he jumped bail and was rewarded with a discharge from the charges pending against him at the trial court thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice against the state and the victims of the crimes perpetrated by the respondent.”

For further information and updates always visit dailygam.com