Kanu Drags Nigeria, Kenya To African Commission On Human And Peoples Rights

Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu,
has dragged the Nigerian and Kenyan governments to the African
Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, to demand accountability
for his extraordinary rendition.

Kanu’s special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, revealed this in a
statement on his Facebook wall late Monday.

Ejimakor said jurisdiction lies with the Commission because
Nigeria and Kenya are state parties to the African Charter.

It reads: “A few days ago, I commenced a continental legal
action against Nigeria and Kenya before the African Commission on
Human and Peoples Rights, demanding accountability for the
extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

“Jurisdiction lies with the Commission because Nigeria and Kenya
are State Parties to the African Charter; and Nigeria even took a
step further to domesticate the Charter, thus making it part of her
municipal laws.

“Both countries also have extradition laws that prohibit this
sort of reprehensible conduct that saw Kanu to Nigeria.

“More particularly, extraordinary rendition is expressly
prohibited under the African Charter, where It provides in
pertinent part that “A State may not transfer (e.g. deport, expel,
remove, extradite) an individual to the custody of another State
unless it is prescribed by law and in accordance with due process
and other international human rights obligations. Extraordinary
rendition, or any other transfer, without due process is
prohibited”.

“A victim of extraordinary rendition is entitled to remedies
mandated by the Charter.

“Therefore, among many other reliefs, I requested that Kanu be
restored to his state of being before the rendition, which state of
being was that he travelled to Kenya on his British passport and
was duly admitted as such and as a free man.

“Further, that no valid territorial jurisdiction can issue from
an act of extraordinary rendition because Kanu is, technically
speaking, still in Kenya.

“And that the Nigerian bench warrant standing against Kanu is,
in the absence of any successful extradition proceedings in Kenya,
invalid to arrest in Kenya.

“I also requested the Commission to adopt other urgent measures
as the Commission sees fit in the circumstances to protect Nnamdi
Kanu in the interim. A fact-finding visitation to Nigeria is also
in reckoning.

“In my previous press briefings, I had said – with much
confidence – that Kanu’s trial will be a trial within trial. To
those who didn’t fully grasp what it meant, this extant continental
legal action will give you a clue. And this is just the
beginning.

“To be sure, any nation that dabbles in extraordinary rendition
has unwittingly brought impediments to her territorial
jurisdiction. So, Nigeria, whether it admits it or not, has
triggered a hornets nest that has, for the first time, brought the
international legal order to bear on the matter of Mazi Nnamdi
Kanu.”

Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu,
has dragged the Nigerian and Kenyan governments to the African
Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, to demand accountability
for his extraordinary rendition.

Kanu’s special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, revealed this in a
statement on his Facebook wall late Monday.

Ejimakor said jurisdiction lies with the Commission because
Nigeria and Kenya are state parties to the African Charter.

It reads: “A few days ago, I commenced a continental legal
action against Nigeria and Kenya before the African Commission on
Human and Peoples Rights, demanding accountability for the
extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

“Jurisdiction lies with the Commission because Nigeria and Kenya
are State Parties to the African Charter; and Nigeria even took a
step further to domesticate the Charter, thus making it part of her
municipal laws.

“Both countries also have extradition laws that prohibit this
sort of reprehensible conduct that saw Kanu to Nigeria.

“More particularly, extraordinary rendition is expressly
prohibited under the African Charter, where It provides in
pertinent part that “A State may not transfer (e.g. deport, expel,
remove, extradite) an individual to the custody of another State
unless it is prescribed by law and in accordance with due process
and other international human rights obligations. Extraordinary
rendition, or any other transfer, without due process is
prohibited”.

“A victim of extraordinary rendition is entitled to remedies
mandated by the Charter.

“Therefore, among many other reliefs, I requested that Kanu be
restored to his state of being before the rendition, which state of
being was that he travelled to Kenya on his British passport and
was duly admitted as such and as a free man.

“Further, that no valid territorial jurisdiction can issue from
an act of extraordinary rendition because Kanu is, technically
speaking, still in Kenya.

“And that the Nigerian bench warrant standing against Kanu is,
in the absence of any successful extradition proceedings in Kenya,
invalid to arrest in Kenya.

“I also requested the Commission to adopt other urgent measures
as the Commission sees fit in the circumstances to protect Nnamdi
Kanu in the interim. A fact-finding visitation to Nigeria is also
in reckoning.

“In my previous press briefings, I had said – with much
confidence – that Kanu’s trial will be a trial within trial. To
those who didn’t fully grasp what it meant, this extant continental
legal action will give you a clue. And this is just the
beginning.

“To be sure, any nation that dabbles in extraordinary rendition
has unwittingly brought impediments to her territorial
jurisdiction. So, Nigeria, whether it admits it or not, has
triggered a hornets nest that has, for the first time, brought the
international legal order to bear on the matter of Mazi Nnamdi
Kanu.”