Aloy Ejimakor, the special legal representative for imprisoned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has spoken on the misunderstanding surrounding a lawsuit he filed against the extraordinary rendition of his client by the Nigerian government.
In a lengthy statement made available to Newsmen on Wednesday, October 19, Ejimakor said he felt compelled to clarify the situation in light of the flood of questions he had been receiving from media outlets and worried citizens about the viability of the Federal High Court of Umuahia’s decision regarding Kanu’s extraordinary rendition.
Regarding the judgment schedule, Ejimakor said, “Yes,” pointing out that the judgment day remained as originally planned. According to him, the inquiries are apparently necessitated by the judgment of court of Appeal in Abuja on 13th October .
Nnamdi Kanu: Court Reveals Date To Deliver Judgement In IPOB Leaders Case
“Despite this Court of Appeal judgment, the Federal High Court, Umuahia will still proceed with its own judgment on 27th October 2022 as was previously scheduled. My office has not received, and we do not expect to receive any notice from the court that the judgment has been adjourned,” the legal practitioner noted.
He added: “In my awareness that these inquiries mostly emanated from the major and significant impact extraordinary rendition had on the Court of Appeal judgment, I will hasten to add that, despite the common presence of extraordinary rendition, the issues and reliefs before the Court of Appeals in Abuja are markedly different from the issues and reliefs pending judgment before the Federal High Court, Umuahia.
“To be sure, the sole reason for the common presence of extraordinary rendition in both cases is because I had, as far back as August 2021, taken it before the State High court in Umuahia and later to the Federal High court.
“In summary, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja considered the narrow issue of the impact of extraordinary rendition on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja to subject Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to trial. Conversely, the issues or prayers before the Federal High Court, Umuahia are many and different from the narrow issue of jurisdiction decided in the Abuja judgment.”
Nnamdi Kanu Demands N25b From Federal Government Over Extradition From Kenya
For clarity, Ejimakor explained in detail the prayers pending before Umuahia Court which according to him were not specifically and fundamentally considered or captured by the judgment in Abuja.
The prayers, Naija News understands narrowed down to Kanu’s forceful repatriation to Nigeria after he was captured in Kenya. It further challenged the respondents to stay off from any criminal prosecution of the applicant.
Ejimakor also in the suit, demanded the respondents to pay the sum of N25,000,000,000.00 (Twenty-Five Billion Naira) to Kanu as punishment for damages caused to the applicant. He claimed that his client suffered physical, mental, emotional, psychological, property and other damages as a result of the infringements of the applicant’s fundamental rights by the respondents.
Ejimakor’s prayers read thus:
“1, A DECLARATION that the arrest of the Applicant in Kenya by the Respondents’ agents without due process of law is arbitrary, and the Respondents’ enforced disappearance of the Applicant for eight (8) days and their refusal to produce the Applicant before a Kenyan Court for the purpose of Applicant’s extradition is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amount to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against arbitrary arrest, to his personal liberty and to fair hearing as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.
“2, A DECLARATION that the detention of the Applicant in a non-official secret facility in Kenya and the torture of the Applicant in Kenya by the Respondents’ agents is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amount to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against unlawful detention, torture and to fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter).
“3, A DECLARATION that, pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Charter, the expulsion (or extraordinary rendition) of the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria by the Respondents without a decision taken in accordance with the law of Kenya is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing and not to be expelled from a State Party to the Charter except by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.
“4, A DECLARATION that any criminal prosecution of the Applicant the purpose of which the Respondents unlawfully expelled the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.
“5, AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining and prohibiting the Respondents from taking any further step in any criminal prosecution of the Applicant enabled by the said unlawful expulsion of the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria.
“6, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the Respondents to forthwith restitute or otherwise restore the Applicant to his liberty, same being his state of being as of 19th June, 2021; and to thereupon repatriate the Applicant to his country of lawful domicile (to wit: the United Kingdom) to await the outcome of any formal request the Respondents may file before the competent authorities in Britain for the lawful extradition of the Applicant to Nigeria.
“7, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the Respondents to issue an official Letter of Apology to the Applicant for the infringement of his fundamental rights; and publication of said Letter of Apology in three (3) national dailies.
“8, AN ORDER mandating and compelling the Respondents to pay the sum of N25,000,000,000.00 (Twenty-Five Billion Naira) to the Applicant, being monetary damages claimed by the Applicant against the Respondents jointly and severally for the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, property and other damages suffered by the Applicant as a result of the infringements of Applicant’s fundamental rights by the Respondents.”
Ejimakor concluded the press release by stating once more that the ruling in Abuja bordered on jurisdiction, whilst the case in Umuahia bordered on fundamental rights, making it sui generis.
He continued by noting that there is no sit-at-home on the judgment day of October 27, 2022, as his client had already informed the public.
Follow us on Facebook
Post Disclaimer
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Anaedo Online or official policies of the Anaedo Online.