Three Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), Chief Mike Ahamba, Mr. Babatunde Ogala, and Prof. Paul Ananaba, have called for the immediate release of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as ordered by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. The senior lawyers, who spoke on the issue in different telephone chats with Saturday Telegraph, were reacting to the statement credited to the Attorney- General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami. Malami was quoted to have said that the case is not over for Kanu, saying the court did not acquit him.

“For the avoidance of doubt and by the verdict of the court, Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted,” Malami had said. A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Hanatu Sankey, had held that the Federal Government contravened the Terrorism Act, Extradition Act and also breached international conventions and treaties guiding extraditions, thus, violating the rights of Kanu. In his submissions, Chief Ahamba said that it’s within the court’s power to either dismiss or strike out the case. He said: “Kanu has been released by the court. It’s within the court’s power to either dismiss or strike out the case. “If the Federal Government orders Kanu’s re-arrest, it means it is looking for the people’s problem. “So, let them release Nnamdi Kanu and give him a chance to also change his approach.

“I have always said that he can only be released by judicial order and not presidential order. That has been my position. “Now that this has happened, I expect reasonable advice and consideration of the situation for us to move to the next point. “I am happy that it has come to the point at which some of us who are insisting on a judicial order for Kanu’s release have been proved right.” Similarly, Ogala, who initially stated that he didn’t have details of the judgement and so could not make an informed opinion, argued that the Nigerian government didn’t follow the protocol before bringing Nnamdi Kanu to Nigeria.

However, Ogala expressed worries about the fact that the IPOB leader had already jumped bail as granted to him by the Federal High Court in Abuja, with an addition that he would not know the issues raised before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal that made it set Nnamdi Kanu free. Meanwhile, Prof. Ananaba has insisted that the IPOB leader should be released immediately after his acquittal by the Court of Appeal. He said the Department of State Services (DSS) should let Kanu go home immediately as a way of obeying the court pronouncement.

“The meaning of the court ruling is that Nnamdi Kanu was discharged. That means he is a free man. “If the Federal Government refuses to release him because it desires to bring new charges, it will amount to a mushrooming holding charge which is not known to our jurisprudence. “I think the judgement of the court should be respected, if the court frees the man, they should obey the pronouncement of the court,” he said. Ananaba added: “This idea of using lawyers to subvert the pronouncement of the court is not healthy in our legal system. “And not complying with the court order is a big problem in this country.

“Even if they want to appeal the judgement, they should first obey the court pronouncement. “Yes, they can appeal the decision of the court but before they do that, they should first obey the court order, that’s the way it works everywhere. “I think there won’t be any need to continue to hold the man after the court pronouncement, they should set him free, and if there is any appeal or any other charge, he can be invited to answer to that.

“That’s the way it is done.” Also, another legal Practitioner, Chief Iheke Solomon, said that “an accused person is discharged and acquitted after undergoing a full blown trial on the charges preferred against him, when the prosecution fails to discharge the onus of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Solomon said: “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu never underwent any trial of the sort aforesaid. “His case went on appeal to the Court of Appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the trial Court to subject him to any full blown trial.

“The appeal succeeded and hence his discharge and not acquittal. “However, the Court of Appeal quashed and voided all the charges preferred against him. Therefore, there is nothing on the slate for which he can be tried anymore by any Court. “Accordingly, if Malami alleges that there’re pre-rendition charges pending before the trial Court of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, I am minded to submit that he has totally misconceived the law, practice and procedure which the matter before the trial Court has gone through to the Court of Appeal, and also of the legal import of the judgement tumbling down from that appellate Court.

“If Malami wants to manufacture new and fresh charges, let him come out boldly to say so. “He should not masquerade behind the wrong interpretation of the judgement of the Court of Appeal to keep Nnamdi Kanu in continuous incarceration in utter disobedience of the judgement. “On the other hand, let him release Nnamdi Kanu first to the country where the FGN unlawfully and unconstitutionally kidnapped him, and then begin the lawful process of extradition, in order to continue lawfully with the trial of Nnamdi Kanu.

“Other than embarking on this process, I submit that any other charges Malami may conjure up against him will suffer and embrace the same feat of the moment. “The Court shall lack the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the charges because this judgement of the Court of Appeal shall stand like the rock of Gibraltar on its path.” A former Chairman of Public Interest Lawyers League, Dr. Abdul Mahmud, called it an interesting judgement, which explores the legal principle of “male captus, bene detentus”- bad capture, good detention. “The judgement of the court is against the grain of judicial decisions that have emerged from British and American courts; and of course what I know of the judicial application of the principle in famous trials of Aldof Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 and Artoine Argoud in Paris in 1963.