Kanu takes battle for freedom to Supreme Court
[FILES] Nnamdi Kalu in court
Detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed an appeal at the Supreme Court challenging the October 28, 2022, decision of the Court of Appeal, which granted a stay of execution of its order discharging and acquitting him.
The appellate court had, on October 13, 2022, ordered the unconditional release of Kanu, having quashed all 15-count charges levelled against him by Federal Government.
The three-man panel, led by Justice Jummai Sankey, in its judgment, faulted the rendition of Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria and consequently dismissed the terrorism charges against him.
Apparently displeased by the decision, Federal Government filed an application for a stay of execution of the judgment, which another three-man panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsamani, granted.
The Federal Government had applied that the execution of the judgment be suspended pending the resolution of an appeal it lodged at the Supreme Court.
Justice Tsamani had, in a brief ruling, held that the counter affidavit filed against the Federal Government application by Kanu’s legal team was “misleading.”
Also, not satisfied with the development, Kanu, through his legal team, led by Chief Mike Ozekhome, filed an appeal predicated on three grounds at the apex court.
By the appeal dated November 3, the appellant (Kanu) is seeking an order allowing the appeal and setting aside, in its entirety, the decision of the Court of Appeal made on October 28, 2022, staying the execution of the judgment delivered on October 13, 2022.
In addition, Kanu wants an order of the Supreme Court restoring the efficacy of the judgement of the court below, which has not in any way been set aside by a higher court.
In ground one of his notice of appeal, Kanu said that the court below erred in law when it proceeded to hear and determine an application for a stay of execution of judgment in a criminal appeal, brought under Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, and Section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act of 2004, and, thereby, occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
