By Ezeakukwu Emmanuel Nsoedo
Prince Orji Nwafor-Orji is renowned for his fiery adherence to the sanctity of law, especially when it appears that the law interpreted by the Appeals Court may be compromised on the altar of political expediency.
The crux of the vexing matter rests on the judgment of the Appeals Court with respect to the suit filed by the Federal government against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB).
The plethora of charges against Nnamdi Kanu was quashed stemming from the position of the Court of Appeals that the high court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the federal government because of the means through which they brought Nnamdi Kanu back to Nigeria.
The Attorney General of the Federation had stated through his spokesperson that the Appeals Court discharged Mazi Nnamdi Kanu but did not acquit him.
Prince Orji faulted that interpretation advanced by the Attorney General. Barrister Orji Nwafor-Orizu asserted that the Court of Appeals could only discharge Nnamdi Kanu without acquiring him. He maintained that the Court of Appeals had ruled that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case due to the rendition executed by the government.
Orji Nwafor-Orizu said “let us look at the matter this way. The man is discharged because the court does not have jurisdiction and the high court that tried him had no jurisdiction because of the rendition of where he was brought from, and all matters related to him.
“The judgment went further to say that any other charge against Kanu is nullified for lack of jurisdiction. So, right or wrong, it has said the court has no jurisdiction.
“If a court has no jurisdiction. If the high court has jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction, if the high court has jurisdiction, then the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction”.
Orji Nwafor-Orizu argued further that since the high court was affected by a lack of jurisdiction to try Nnamdi Kanu, it has the same effect on the Court of Appeals to try Kanu. “If the court has no jurisdiction the only order a court can give is an order striking out if it is a civil matter, and discharging the accused person.”
“The court cannot dismiss or acquit. The court cannot acquit Kanu because acquittal is what comes after a due trial.
“So, because of lack of jurisdiction, a discharge has the same legal effect as an acquittal as in this instant case because there is no jurisdiction.
“So it is not a question of rearresting him because the court has no jurisdiction. So, Nnamdi Kanu should be a free man. I urge the Attorney General and the federal government not to politicized the matter.
“The prosecutor should not be a persecutor. The prosecutor takes the case to court to be tried by the court, and they are themselves not the court. If the court gives a judgment, that is why we have a constitutional democracy,” said Orji Nwafor-Orizu.
He further said that the Court of Appeals accused them of executive recklessness. He urged them to approach Nnamdi Kanu’s case just like any other case without injecting any bias feelings.
He argued that if Kanu is not released immediately, it will be “unfortunate and an affront to the judiciary” Orji said.
,
“