Kanu’s Lawyer Reveals Next Action As FG Objects To Court Order Releasing Kanu
2 min read
Kanu’s Lawyer Reveals Next Action As FG Objects To Court Order Releasing Kanu
By Naomisophy blog
The lead counsel for Nnamdi Kanu, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, has advised the Federal Government to obey the judgement of the Appeal Court by allowing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to go home.
He stated that the judgement will bring peace to the Southeast, if obeyed.
Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was discharged and acquitted by an Appeal Court sitting in Abuja on Thursday after Kanu’s lawyers had filed an appeal in the court.
However, the Federal Government through her Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami said that Nnamdi Kanu was discharged and not acquitted. Malami in a statement said that the judgement of the Appeal Court borders only on rendition.
READ ALSO:
State House Clinic Never Used By President Gets Additional N394M Budget For 2023
Chimamanda Adichie Rejects National Honour From President Buhari
Amotekun Can’t Match Weapons Bandits And Other Criminals Have – El-Rufai
Parts of the statement read;
“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 will consider all available options open to us on the judgment on rendition while pursuing determination of pre-rendition issues.”
Reacting to Malami’s statement, Ozekhome said in an interview on Channels Television that he will file a cross-appeal on some issues he doesn’t agree with the Court of Appeal on, should the Federal Government go on to appeal the judgement of the Appeal Court.
According to Ozekhome, the law clearly states that a person can only be tried when the place and time a crime was committed has been established. And in the case of Nnamdi Kanu, the Federal Government stated that Nnamdi Kanu made a broadcast but didn’t say where he made the broadcast. Ozekhome said that Appeal Court overlooked this part.
About The Author
