The ECOWAS
court judges, Justice Micah Wilkins, Justice Yaya Boiro and Justice Akaine
Sallm, as well as Barr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu all
arrived the court premises at about 9:45am, but the case was put on hold due to
the absence of the lawyer representing the Nigerian government.
The case
which was characterised by an intensive legal duel between the legal team of
Nnamdi Kanu and that of the Nigerian government started at about 12pm Nigerian
time, after the court waited patiently for the arrival of the Counsel to the
Nigerian government.
After the introduction of the two Counsels,
Barr. Ejiofor rose and informed the court that he was "ambushed" by a
new application sent to him by the counsel to the federal government, noting that
the application is not acceptable.
The counsel to FG, Hon. Mohammed Diri
expressed concern over the use of the word "ambush" by Ejiofor as the
application sent to him is not harmful. However, the presiding judge corrected
him that Ejiofor's terminology was not actually relating to military ambush,
rather it is an explanation of the surprising nature with which he, Mohammed Diri
submitted his application.
Meanwhile,
Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor read out Article 50 to the honourable court, which is
against such application. Ejiofor insisted that the new application is a delay
tactics to stop the honourable court from hearing the case.
Furthermore, he
insisted that subject to Article 44 and 87, such method of filling a new
application is totally wrong. He however urged the honourable court to dismiss
the new application by the Nigerian government, quoting Article 87 sub section
5, noting that the rights of the defendants have been grossly violated by the
Nigerian government, as further delay of the case will not be accepted.
Responding
to the request by the counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, the presiding judge stated that
the Counsel to the Nigerian government ought to have properly addressed his
application prior to today's proceedings.
However, counsel to the Nigerian government
objected, quoting Article 5, as guaranteeing him the right to amplify any
evidence.
The judge
intercepted and asked him why he couldn't file the application from October 5
till date, which is about 5weeks since the last hearing took place.
The
Nigeria's counsel quoted article 72, paragraph 2, stated that their new
application is based on their preliminary objection. He further stated that
they have the right to appeal in order to amplify their evidence against the
defendants.
He stated that the application was filed yesterday November 7, at a
time the hearing is yet to commence. He asserted that the counsels to Nnamdi
Kanu are the ones delaying the case, having first started the delay tactics.
Mohammed
Diri referred to the first hearing by the court in which he sighted that the
case was adjourned based on an oral application. Thus, he pleaded that the case
be dismissed and the judged should also consider it as an oral application.
Counsel to
Nnamdi Kanu, Hon. Ifeanyi Ejiofor objected, noting that "he who goes to
equity should go with clean hands," therefore the application should not
be entertained.
After the
tensed up arguments, the presiding judge allowed the counsel to the Nigerian
government, Mohammed Diri, to read out the contents of his application.
Hon.
Mohammed Diri rose and said:
"My Lord, this ECOWAS court lack the
jurisdiction of this trial. This court should not hear this case."
Mr. Diri stated that two municipal courts
in Nigeria had refused to grant the defendants bail, therefore the ECOWAS court
should not grant them bail. He further stated that according to article 6 of
African chapter, the Ecowas court has no power to hear such criminal case,
therefore the case should be dismissed.
"The Ecowas court is not an appellant
court, but a supervisory one over the Nigeria municipal court." Diri
stated and referred the judge to the case between the Federal government of
Nigeria and Asari Dokubo.
Afterwards, one of the presiding judges demanded
that the counsels put on their English translation devices, as he addressed the
two counsels in French language.
After
speaking with the counsels, Nnamdi Kanu's lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor was permitted
to counter the claims made by the counsel to the Nigerian government. He said:
"My Lord, we humbly submit that
bringing the present application by the defendants, under sections 161 sub 1
and 2, section 241, 262 of the criminal justice act 2015, is legally faulty,
"My Lord, this court is a sub-regional
court, which does not derive its powers of jurisdiction from any of the
domestic laws. The court powers is contained in the 1991 act and that of the
supplementary of 2005," Barr. Ejiofor argued.
He further stated that access to the court
is open to individuals or corporate bodies whose fundamental human rights are
under threat. He noted that joining the second and third defendants to the
issue is legal to the case, sighting a case between Murtar Ibrahim against the
Governor of Adamawa state, the case between Onwo and Nwafor Okoh, and the case
between Etim Moses and the Gambian government for reference purposes.
Barrister Ejiofor also referred the presiding
judge to 19th of November 2015, when Nnamdi Kanu was granted bail but the order
was not obeyed. He pointed out President Buhari's speech, where he vowed never
to release the applicants. Ejiofor posited that on that note, the applicants
have been turned into political prisoners, hence has lost confidence in the
Nigeria municipal courts.
"Following the announcement by the
President, it became obvious that the President presides over the Nigeria
judiciary," Ejiofor stated. Afterwards the court went on a short break as
the judges ease themselves.
On the resumption of proceedings, Barrister
Ejiofor who seems fully loaded and prepared for the day continued debunking the
claims by the Nigerian government, represented by Mohammed Diri. Hon Ejiofor
noted that the refusal to release his client (Nnamdi Kanu) even after court
order that had granted him bail and unconditional release is a gross violation
of the rights of the citizen of a member state. He cited a case in 2006 between
Hang Fawemi and Abacha.
He also
stated that the right of the plaintiffs has been violated by the Nigerian
government. He debunked the defending counsel for comparing Asari Dokubo and
the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, as it is clear to all and
sundry that IPOB is a non-violent group seeking for self determination. He
further cited how over 200 unarmed IPOB members were massacred and killed by
the Nigerian government.
The counsel to Nigerian government rose in
objection, but was countered by the presiding judge as he was previously given
over 30minutes to make his arguments and shouldn't argue further. He however,
demanded that the two counsels be allowed to argue, which was granted.
The counsel to the Nigerian government
stated that the Dasuki case is different. He argued that citizen Nnamdi Kanu
was never granted bail, but was kept in prison custody according to a court
order.
The
presiding judge stated that ECOWAS court is an international court, hence does
not work like the courts situated in Nigeria.
The
arguments ended, and the judges adjourned the case to February 9, 2017, for a
final ruling. The judges gave reason for the adjournment as being a series of
meetings to be held by members of the ECOWAS court.
Subscribe to our Email Updates to get the latest Articles in your Email instantly: Join our Email subscribers.
No comments:
Post a Comment
RULES FOR COMMENTERS: - 11/30/2018
1) Its good to say your mind about what you have read. Please do make ethical comment(s).
2) COMMENTS WITH UNACCEPTABLE LINKS (URLs) WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY BY THE COMMENT MODERATOR.
If you won't abide by the rules please do not comment.
Thanks.