THE Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, has stated that the offence committed by Nnamdi Kanu, the arrested leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is complicated and can only be determined by a competent court of law.
He went on to say that because the case was already in court, the law should be allowed to take its course.
The AGF made this statement today in response to queries at the Sectoral Ministerial Briefing commemorating President Bola Tinubu’s first anniversary in office.
He also noted a significant contrast between Kanu’s case and that of Omoyele Sowore.
While emphasizing that Kanu is being held in compliance with the Constitution, he also stated that the case was still in court.
The Attorney General further stated that the Federal Government obtained 250 convictions for terrorism and other criminal acts in one year.
Kanu’s lawyers filed a Preliminary Objection with the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, requesting that the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, deny jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against him.
Part of the question for determination is whether the court has the jurisdiction to try Kanu for any or all of the offences charged against him in Counts 1, 2, 4,5, and 8, as well as to quash the said counts on the grounds that the law upon which the said counts were based is unconstitutional.
They cited two international tribunal decisions against Kanu’s arrest, custody, prosecution, and trial, which the Nigerian constitution requires the court to follow.
They further argued that the statute under which Kanu is currently being tried on these counts has been abolished and is not supported by evidence, maintaining that it is a misuse of the court system.
Kanu’s counsel is also requesting that the court deny authority to hear Count 15, since it is not in accordance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, is not within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, and is not supported by any evidence or legislation.
They want the court to take notice that count 3 of the accusations is unconstitutional because it aims to punish Kanu for a conduct that was not a crime at the time and constitutes an abuse of the justice process.
Recall that on Monday Justice Nyako denied Kanu’s motion to reinstate his revoked bail and be transferred from the Department of State Services (DSS) custody to house arrest or prison detention.
