It was a day of legal fireworks at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division when the Stay of Execution application filed by the Federal Government against the judgement of the appellate court delivered on October 13, 2022 which discharged the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu of the treason and terrorism charges, came up in Court, this Monday.
After listening to the adoption of written addresses, the 3-man panel led by Justice Haruna Samani, reserved ruling on the application to a later date.
On October 13, Justice Jummai Sankey leading two other Justices of the Court of Appeal had quashed all the 15-count charge preferred against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal Government, and consequently discharged him.
But, instead of obeying the valid order of the Court of Appeal, the Federal Government has continued to hold Nnamdi Kanu in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria's capital city.
This Monday, the Federal Government returned to the same appellate Court it failed to obey its order, this time telling the Justices that it had filed a Motion on Notice for a Stay of Execution of its own judgement, even without first complying with the earlier decision of the Court.
In adopting his written address on the application for Stay, Counsel to the Federal Government, David Kaswe, prayed for an order for Stay of Execution of judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on October 13, pending the determination of an appeal at the Supreme Court.
Kaswe told the Court that the application was based on six grounds, and supported by a 5-paragraph affidavit.
The FG lawyer argued that the motion for a Stay was brought: “essentially in the interest of justice and the need to preserve the relative peace in the South East. The Respondent is a flight risk person, and one of the grounds for the application touches on national security. We urge the Court to grant our application as prayed, having seen the exceptional circumstances, and in the interest of justice". Kaswe said.
The FG lawyer further stated that releasing Nnamdi Kanu may impact negatively on what he said is a "fragile" security situation in the country, and in particular, the South East region.
Nnamdi Kanu's defense team quickly countered the submissions made by the lawyer to the Federal Government.
Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), leading other lawyers for Nnamdi Kanu while adopting his written address, told the 3-panel of the Appeal Court Judges that he filed a 5-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Ifeanyi Ejiofor Esq, to oppose what he described as a highly “unmeritorious application” by the Federal Government.
Ozekhome argued that the essence of the FG application is for the appellate court to overrule itself, saying that there will be anarchy and chaos in the South East region of Nigeria if the authorities continue to detain the leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu after a valid Court order.
“It is the release of Nnamdi Kanu that will bring peace and tranquility in the South East. When the judgement was delivered on October 13, there was joy, merriment and celebration in the region. There is no exceptional circumstances, there is no res to be stayed and I urge the Court not to succumb to the application of the applicant", Ozekhome is quoted as saying.
He informed the Justices that the Federal Government knew clearly that in a criminal proceeding, you cannot bring in a Stay of Execution, and that was why they filed the Motion on Notice, under the Civil Rules Procedure.
Ozekhome said: "The applicant brought issues of mixed law and facts and the application was filed without leave of Court".
In addition, Ozekhome urged the court to look critically at the health condition of Kanu, observing that it is only the living that can face trial.
Kanu's lawyer argued that, his client did not jump bail until the FG invaded his home at Afaraukwu Ibeku, Abia State and by providence, Kanu managed to escape,
He drew the attention of the Court to a fact that even the United Nations Working group has urged the FG to release Nnamdi Kanu.
He therefore urged the court to refuse the application of the FG for being an "abuse of Court process, a slap on the face of this Court, an insult to the Court".
No date has been fixed for the ruling.
