Special Counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People
of Biafra, IPOB, on Monday, discovered the “legal connection” between embattled
Abba Kyari and the Biafra agitator.
Ejimakor said the update from the Attorney General of the
Federation, Abubakar Malami, requesting further probe of some aspects of the
suspended Deputy Commissioner of Police investigation has created a new legal
connection with Kanu.
In an open letter to Malami, Ejimakor argued that if the AGF
can offer legal advice in the extradition process of Kyari, who is wanted in
the United States for his part in fraudulent activities by Ramon Abass,
popularly known as Hushpuppi, then “Nnamdi Kanu is equally entitled to any
legal advice that impacts his prosecution”.
Full letter tagged: “The new connection between Abba Kyari
and Nnamdi Kanu: An Open Letter to Attorney General Malami,” reads below…
”On 13th March 2022, it was widely reported in the media
that the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation issued a Legal
Opinion/Advice exonerating DCP Abba Kyari from the allegation of money laundering,
which forms the main basis upon which the United States of America is seeking
Kyari’s extradition to America. One of such publications in a well-respected
national daily was captioned “Hushpuppi: New Legal Advice from AGF’s office
exonerates Abba Kyari of money laundering allegation”.
”In as much as this Legal Advice does not sit well with
certain segments of Nigerians (and even the Americans that seek the extradition
of Abba Kyari), it needs to be stated that the rendering of Legal Opinion or Advice
comports with the constitutional powers of the Attorney-General of the
Federation as preserved under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
”Suffice it to say that this very legal advice exonerating
Abba Kyari has created a new legal connection between Abba Kyari and Mazi
Nnamdi Kanu. The connection lies simply in the fact if Abba Kyari is deemed
entitled to such legal advice that will surely impact his extradition, Nnamdi
Kanu is equally entitled to any legal advice that impacts his prosecution. In
other words, the pertinent provisions of the Nigerian Constitution and
Nigeria’s Extradition Act must be applied equally to all. Thus, Nnamdi Kanu is
now entitled to a selfsame Legal Advice, which must include the following:
”1, Under the universal Doctrine of Specialty which pertains
to extraditions, an extradited fugitive (whether renditioned or otherwise) is
subject to prosecution only for those offences for which he or she was
surrendered, extradited or renditioned. Nigeria recognized this doctrine under
Section 15 of Nigeria’s Extradition Act, which provides that ‘Fugitive
surrendered to Nigeria is not triable for any previous crimes: Where, in
accordance with the law of any country within the Commonwealth, any person
accused of an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Nigeria is
surrendered to Nigeria by the country in question, then, so long as he has not
had a reasonable opportunity of returning to that country, that person shall
not be detained (whether under this Act or otherwise), tried or otherwise dealt
with in Nigeria for or in respect of an offence committed by him before his
surrender to Nigeria other than the offence for which he was surrendered to or
any lesser offence which may be proved by the facts on which his surrender was
granted; or (b) any other offense (being one corresponding to an offense
described in Section 20 of this Act) of the same nature as the offence for
which he was surrendered; provided that a person falling within this section
shall not be detained or tried for an offence by virtue of paragraph (b) of
this section without the prior consent of the country surrendering him’.
2, To be sure, the foregoing provisions were, as regards
Nnamdi Kanu, breached in all their material particulars. First, as of 19th June
2021 when Nnamdi Kanu was abducted in Kenya, he was facing 4-count Charges,
none of which included or bordered on Terrorism. Today, the Charges have been
expanded to 15 counts that included and bordered on Terrorism. Unarguably, this
is a clear violation of the Doctrine of Specialty, especially in view of the
proviso ‘that a person falling within this Section (i.e Section 15 of Nigeria
Extradition Act) shall not be detained or tried for any new offense without the
prior consent of the country surrendering him’. In this very instance of Nnamdi
Kanu, the “surrendering country” is Kenya and there is no evidence that her
consent was obtained before these new 15-count Charges were brought.
3, Conversely, the same Doctrine of Specialty is also
recognized in the Kenyan Extradition Act, which at Section 6(3) states that “A
fugitive shall not be surrendered, or committed to or kept in custody for the
purposes of surrender, unless provision is made by the law of the requesting
country, or by an arrangement made with that country, for securing that he will
not, unless he has first been restored or had an opportunity of returning to
Kenya, be dealt with in that country for or in respect of any offence committed
before his surrender, other than (a) the offence in respect of which his
surrender is requested; or (b) any lesser offence proved by the facts proved
before the Court of committal; or (c) any other extradition offence in respect
of which the Attorney-General may consent to his being so dealt with”. Unarguably,
these provisions have extraterritorial application to Nigeria because, as
regards Nnamdi Kanu, Nigeria is the “requesting country”, which fact has been
affirmed by the sheer compelled presence of Nnamdi Kanu in Nigeria.
4, Interestingly, Nigeria also strictly requires the
selfsame Doctrine of Specialty to be respected when it comes to fugitives
extradited from Nigeria to other countries. Section 3(7) of Nigeria’s
Extradition Act states that ‘A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to
any country unless the Attorney-General (of Nigeria) is satisfied that he will
not be detained or tried in that country for any offence committed before his
surrender other than the extradition offense’.
In view of the foregoing, it has become necessary for the
Honourable Attorney-General to revisit the matter of these new 15-court Charges
presently standing against Nnamdi Kanu with a view to urgently issuing a Legal
Advice to the effect that all the new Charges be withdrawn forthwith. Failure
to do so will amount to a clear violation of the Doctrine of Specialty as
enshrined in Nigeria’s Extradition Act and equal protection of the law as
preserved in the Nigerian Constitution.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com