The discharged leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, isn’t a free man yet. He will still appear in court.
This was disclosed by the Federal Government through the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.
The government is also considering other legal options after the Court of Appeal in Abuja discharged the embattled IPOB leader.
Abubakar Malami made this known in a statement issued on Thursday by his media aide, Umar Gwandu.
Malami said: “For the avoidance of doubt and by the verdict of the Court, Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted.
“Consequently, the appropriate legal options before the authorities will be exploited and communicated accordingly to the public.
“The decision handed down by the court of appeal was on a single issues that borders on rendition.
“Let it be made clear to the general public that other issues that predates rendition on the basis of which Kanu jumped bail remain valid issues for judicial determination.”
The Federal Government, he said, will consider all available options on the judgment on rendition while pursuing determination of pre-rendition issues.
Delivering judgment in an appeal filed by Kanu, a three-member panel led by Justice Hanatu Sankey, in a unanimous judgment, held that the government, by not responding to the appellant’s submissions, conceded to the allegation that Kanu was forcefully renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria.
The judgment read by Justice Adedotun Adefope-Okijie held that it was necessary for the Federal Government to prove the legality of Kanu’s extradition to Nigeria.
The appellate court held that the government flouted the Terrorism Act and was also in violation of all known international conventions and treaties guiding extradition process thus, breaching the rights of the defendant.
The court further held that having illegally and forcefully renditioned the appellant, the trial court is stripped of jurisdiction to continue to try Kanu.
The appellate court held that the Federal Government’s action “tainted the entire proceedings” it initiated against Kanu and amounted to “an abuse of criminal prosecution in general.”