The Supreme Court on Friday reversed the October 13, 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu on the case of treasonable felony brought against him by the Federal Government.
A five-member panel of the apex court, presided over by Justice Kudirat Kekere-ekun, held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have discharged and acquitted Kanu because the prosecution acted illegally in the manner in which the IPOB leader was brought back from Kenya to face trial after jumping bail.
In the lead judgment written by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, but read on Friday by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the Supreme Court held that despite the fact that he was illegally brought back to Nigeria from Kenya, that unlawful act of the prosecution did divest the trial court of the jurisdiction to continue Kanu’s trial.
The Supreme Court held that under Nigerian law, evidence obtained as a result of the violation of the right of an accused person to privacy and the evidence obtained as a result of illegal search are legal evidence before the court.
The court further held that the law did not support the position where an accused argued that an illegality has been committed against him/her concerning his/her standing trial before a court, that illegally committed against him/her by the prosecution should divest the trial court of jurisdiction and render the prosecution process incompetent.
“We have made analogy of the use of illegally obtained evidence or evidence obtained as a result of the of violation of the right of the accused to privacy and the evidence obtained as a result of illegal search.
“What is the response of our law to such a a situation? Our law is that despite what happened, that evidence is proper evidence before the court.
“If the police should illegally detained a person accused of committing a crime and illegally arrest him, torture him and subject him to all kinds of dehumanisation, should that divest the court of the jurisdiction to try the case brought against him in that process?
“The courts have continued to insist that as long as there is a reasonable basis of suspicion of the commission of an offence, an accused should tried on that basis” ,Justice Agim said.
He added that where an accused person who is standing trial before a court feels that his/her rights have been violated by the prosecution, the remedy, by law, lies in a civil proceeding.
Agim added: “That has been the position of the Nigerian law for a very long time. The Nigerian law has not developed to the point whereby it could be said that, on account of the clear violation of the right of an accused person standing trial before a court, the proceeding before that court has become incompetent and the court is divested of jurisdiction to continue to hear the case. That is not our law for now.
“All said and done, there is no Nigerian law that supports the position held by the Court of Appeal that the trial court no longer has jurisdiction where the prosecution did anything illegal against an accused person while he is standing trial.
“If the prosecution, in its usual overzealousness and malice, destroys a person’s house in a bid to search for and collected evidence, that would not stop the person’s trial. It will only lead to a cause of action for civil remedy. Certainly, not go stop the trial.
“So, for that reason, we decided not to go with the Court of Appeal on this issue because that should not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction.
“In as much as we strongly condemn what the prosecution did against the accused, Nigerian law does not support the position taken by the Court of Appeal,” Justice Agim said.
He described as totally irresponsible the invasion of Kanu’s home by the military when he was granted bail by the trial court.
The judge also faulted the decision of the trial court to revoke Kanu’s bail on account that he jumped bail after his house was invaded.
He noted that, if as a result of the life threatening invasion of his home, Kanu ran away, he should not be blamed.
“That is where we found the revocation of his bail as totally wrong and unfair. Remember that Nigeria has barely recovered from the case of Umaru Dikko.
“Despite all that we found that the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the trial,” Justice Agim said.
The apex court dismissed the cross-appeal filed by Kanu against some portions of the Court of Appeal judgment.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja had, in its judgment on October 13, 2022 faulted the manner the Federal Government brought Kanu back into the country to continue his trial.
The appellate court proceeded to quash the seven counts left in the treasonable felony charge on which Kanu was being tried before a Federal High Court in Abuja before jumped bail.
The Appeal Court was of the view that the Fed Govt violated rules of engagement in the ways and manners Kanu was arrested in Kenya and brought to Nigeria.
The Court of Appeal added that the Fed Govt breached international laws and resorted to self help in its failure to file extradition application against Kanu in Kenya, but chose to resort to unlawful abduction and rendition.
The appellate court’s three-member panel proceeded to discharge Kanu, acquitted him and order his release from custody.
Before the judgment could be executed, the Fed Govt applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending the determination of its appeal against the judgment, an application the Court of Appeal granted.
It subsequently appealed the judgment at the Supreme Court, with Kanu filing a cross-appeal.
Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court had in an earlier ruling, struck out eight counts out of the 15 counts in the original charge filed against Kanu, leaving the seven, which the Court of Appeal quashed in its judgment.