The Federal Government has insisted that it would not release Nnamdi Kanu.
In a fresh affidavit filed before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, the Federal Government maintained that Kanu posed a flight risk, insisting he would escape from the country as soon as he was freed from detention.
The affidavit was attached in support of an application seeking to stay the execution of the appellate court verdict that quashed the entire 15-count terrorism charge the federal government preferred against the embattled IPOB leader.
Arguing the application yesterday, an Assistant State Counsel in the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. David Kaswe, told the court that the case against Kanu bordered on national security.
Kaswe argued that Kanu’s fundamental rights should not supersede the interest of the nation.
Relying on the decided case law in Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Asari Dokubo, the federal government argued that once a case touched on national security, the right of the individual affected took secondary place.
Also, the Court of Appeal has faulted reports linking the recent posting of some Justices of the court to different divisions to the October 13 judgment freeing the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
The court’s Chief Registrar, Umar Bangari, said in a statement yesterday that the posting was a routine exercise intended to reinvigorate the court’s justice delivery system.
The statement reads: “The attention of the Court of Appeal has been drawn to a publication in Vanguard of Monday, October 24, 2022, as well as its online version, with the caption “Nnamdi Kanu: 3 Justices on Appeal Court Panel Transferred”, followed by similar publications by other newspapers.
“The publications in question conveyed the innuendo to the effect that the recent postings of Justices of the Court of Appeal were in connection with, or in response to the judgment of the Court of Appeal of October 13, 2022 in Nnamdi Kanu V. the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“We wish to state categorically that the general postings of the Justices of the Court of Appeal under reference were routine and aimed at reinvigorating the justice delivery system of the court.
“In fact, 21 out of 81 Justices, including six Presiding Justices of the court, were affected by the postings.
“Indeed, of the three Justices that sat and determined the said appeal, only one was affected by the general postings.
“It is, therefore, incorrect and uncharitable to insinuate that the Hon. Justices who delivered the judgment in the Nnamdi Kanu appeal were the targets of the routine posting exercise.
“A few minutes of enquiry by the newspaper, or the other media houses that followed up with similar publications could have clarified this fact; unless of course the publication was intended for other purposes.
“Details of the recent postings are available in the office of the Chief Registrar of the court for verification…”
