3 weeks ago
6
The ineligible squad representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained person of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has rejected the exertion of the doctrine of antheral captus bene detentus — a ineligible rule suggesting that an illegally captured idiosyncratic tin inactive beryllium lawfully detained — to Kanu’s case, describing it arsenic inconsistent with Nigeria’s law and planetary human-rights obligations.
In a connection issued to journalists yesterday successful Abuja, connected behalf of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, argued that applying the doctrine to warrant Kanu’s apprehension and rendition from Kenya successful 2021 would magnitude to enforcement illegality.
“The assertion that an amerciable abduction tin output a lawful detention is simply a relic of assemblage jurisprudence agelong buried by modern constitutionalism and planetary human-rights law,” the connection said.
“It is irreconcilable with Sections 35, 36 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter connected Human and Peoples’ Rights.”
According to the defence, the doctrine of antheral captus bene detentus has been rejected successful respective common-law jurisdictions, including the United States and the United Kingdom.
Citing United States v. Toscanino (1974) and R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett (1994), the squad noted that some courts held that nary proceedings could proceed wherever an accused idiosyncratic was brought earlier the tribunal done “deliberate, brutal and amerciable abduction.”
The connection further referenced the Nigerian Supreme Court’s determination successful Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), which affirmed the binding unit of the African Charter successful home law.
“To trust connected antheral captus bene detentus,” the squad said, “is to impulse Nigeria backmost to an property of impunity incompatible with law democracy.”
The consortium recalled that the Federal High Court successful Umuahia (in suit no. FHC/UM/CS/30/2022) had declared Kanu’s abduction and instrumentality to Nigeria arsenic “unlawful and unconstitutional,” portion the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, besides ruled that the bonzer rendition rendered the ongoing proceedings invalid.
“These judgments basal unvacated and stay the lone competent judicial pronouncements connected record,” Ifedi stated.
The connection besides cited the 2022 ruling of the ECOWAS Court of Justice and the findings of the United Nations Working Group connected Arbitrary Detention, some of which faulted Kanu’s rendition and called for his merchandise and compensation.
“By Section 12(1) of the Constitution and Article 26 of the Vienna Convention connected the Law of Treaties, Nigeria is bound by these rulings. Ignoring them would magnitude to undermining the precise instruments that confer legitimacy connected our nationhood,” the consortium noted.
Reacting to the 2023 Supreme Court judgement successful FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu, the defence squad said the decision, delivered by a five-member panel, could not displace the earlier seven-member ruling successful Abacha v. Fawehinmi connected the supremacy of the African Charter.
“Under the doctrine of look decisis, a smaller sheet cannot overrule oregon contradict a larger one,” Ifedi explained, adding that the 2023 judgement “failed to notation binding precedents” and was truthful “rendered per incuriam” — a ineligible word meaning fixed successful ignorance of the law.
The consortium argued that jurisdiction could not beryllium founded connected illegality. “Jurisdiction cannot originate from law defilement; the Constitution remains ultimate to immoderate errant sheet of the Court,” the connection said.
The defence squad urged stakeholders and nationalist institutions to uphold constitutionalism and the regularisation of instrumentality successful addressing Kanu’s case. “The bonzer rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains an enactment inconsistent with law and planetary standards. Neither judicial misdirection nor nationalist commentary tin cleanse its illegality,” helium said.
Quoting the Supreme Court successful A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007), the connection added, “The Constitution is supreme, and immoderate enactment inconsistent with it is null, void, and of nary effect whatsoever.”
English (US) ·