Subject: Nnamdi Kanu, the request for review of his case before the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Introduction :
In a case attracting much media attention, Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the indigenous Biafran independence movement (Biafra), recently applied for a review of his case before the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The request comes after the Court of Appeal quashed the sedition charge against Kanu and ordered his release, on the grounds that he was brought back to the country illegally after escaping on bail. In this article, we will examine the arguments presented by the different parties and the implications of this review request for the judicial future of Nnamdi Kanu.
Federal government calls for reversal of Kanu’s release:
The Federal Government of Nigeria has applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstate the sedition charge against Nnamdi Kanu. According to government counsel Tijani Gazali (SAN), the Supreme Court should “overturn the judgment of the court of appeal and confirm the judgment of the court of first instance, according to which the accused should be tried for the offense which was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Kanu’s lawyer calls for the government’s appeal to be dismissed:
For his part, Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, asked the Supreme Court to reject the government’s appeal and accept the review application filed by his client. Ozekhome argued that Kanu has been in custody since June 29, 2021 and pleaded for justice in the matter. He also asked the Supreme Court to entertain the review petition filed by Kanu.
The position of the Supreme Court:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court refused to order Kanu’s release and continued his detention. The Court also said that although the Nigerian government acted illegally in bringing Kanu back from Kenya, this did not prevent the continuation of his trial. The Court emphasized that no Nigerian law was cited in the request for Kanu’s release on the basis of his illegal repatriation and indicated that Kanu should, if necessary, initiate civil action against this act rather than handing over at issue the powers of the courts to continue his trial on criminal charges.
Implications and perspectives:
Nnamdi Kanu’s review application before the Supreme Court of Nigeria marks an important milestone in his legal journey. If the Supreme Court accepts the review request and reinstates the sedition charge against Kanu, it could have significant consequences for the Biafran independence movement and the stability of the country. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rejects the review petition and upholds the decision of the Court of Appeal, it could strengthen the position of Kanu and the supporters of the Biafran movement.
Conclusion :
Nnamdi Kanu’s case before the Supreme Court of Nigeria raises important questions about justice, fundamental freedoms and the political future of the country. The Supreme Court’s decision will have a significant impact on the fate of Kanu and the dynamics of the Biafran independence movement. It is therefore essential to closely monitor the development of this case, as it could have lasting consequences for Nigeria.