The federal government may have expressed its anger on the three judges of the federal court of appeal who quashed the 15 count charge case and discharged the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu, as it was gathered ha they have been transferred from their various divisions.
Credible source reveal that while the presiding Justice, Jummai Hanatu Sankey, has been moved to Awka Division, Justice Oludotun Adetope-Okojie who delivered the lead judgement, was transferred to Owerri, while the third member of the panel, Justice Ebiowei Tobi, was moved to Gombe.The judges transfer which was contained in a memo dated October 17, and signed by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, noted that the new posting for the justices was with immediate effect as they were expected to report to their new stations by October 21.
This is even as the Supreme Court will today (Monday), hear the appeal FG filed to set aside the judgement that freed Kanu.FG in its appeal, asked the Supreme court to among other things order a stay of the execution of the judgement the appellate court delivered on October 13.
The federal government argued that the appeal court panel erred in law and a miscarriage of justice when it relied on the manner Kanu was renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria after he jumped bail the trial court granted to him in 2017, to quash the entire charge against him.Therefore, FG, through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, is praying the apex court to in the interim, suspend the execution of the Court of Appeal verdict, pending the hearing and determination of its appeal.
It will be recalled that the appeal court had in a unanimous judgement by the three-man panel of justices, accused FG of flagrantly violating all known laws in the way it forcefully rendered Kanu from Kenya to the country for the continuation of his trial.
It held that such extraordinary rendition, without adherence to due process of the law, was a gross violation of all international conventions, treaties, protocols and guidelines that Nigeria is signatory to, as well as a breach of the Appellant’s fundamental human rights.
More so, the appellate court noted that FG failed to refute the allegation that the IPOB leader was in Kenya and that he was abducted and brought back to the country without any extradition proceeding.
It held that FG was “ominously silent on the issue”, which it described as very pivotal in determining whether the trial court would still have the jurisdiction to continue with the criminal proceeding before it.
The appellate court held that FG’s action tainted the entire proceeding it initiated against Kanu and amounted to “an abuse of criminal prosecution in general”.
“The court will never shy away from calling the Executive to order when it tilts towards Executive recklessness”, the appellate court held, even as it accused FG of engaging in “serious abuse of power”.