 We're back with a breakfast and plus TV Africa and of course we're set for a first major conversation right here looking at the situation as far as the Inamdi Council case is concerned. And our guest is already standing by to readjust this to that topic well. The federal government is saying it will, of Nigeria that is, is saying it will consider appropriate legal options concerning the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the trial of the leader of the prescribed Indigenous people of Biafra, IPOB, Inamdi Kanu, the Attorney General of the Federation Naboka Malami. He made this known in a statement issued by Dr. Omar Gwando, who is his special assistant on media and public relations at the Ministry of Justice. Malami said court for the avoidance of doubt and by the verdict of the court Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted. And of course, now consequently the appropriate legal options before the authorities, the federal government is saying, will be exploited and communicated accordingly. If you remember, the Court on Thursday in Abuja, a quash, the terrorism charges brought against Inamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous, the prescribed Indigenous people of Biafra Group, delivering judgment in an appeal filed by Kanu, a three-member panel led by Justice Hana Tussanke in a unanimous judgment held at the respondent by not responding to the appellate submissions conceded to the allegation that Kanu was forcefully renditioned from Nigeria to Kenya, to Nigeria rather from Kenya. Now joining us to discuss his involvement with analysis is, I guess, he's a legal professional, legal practitioner, he joins his life from Port Haqqa via video link. Chief, first is Abuja, good morning to you and thank you very much for your time. Yes, good morning Kofi and good morning to Nigerians. For those who would like to understand what exactly the Court of Appeals said, can you please break it down to us, because from what we read it seems like the non-participation or the submission of the federal government legal team was taken as a concession by the federal government's team. Is that what happened? And what did the judge say? It's not a matter of concession, the judgment is very clear and unambiguous to the effect that the unarmed Kanu cannot be tried in Nigeria when the issue of his rendition was forceful, extraordinary rendition, or abduction, if you permit me, and that's exactly the word used by the Court of Appeals has not been resolved or settled by the federal republic of Nigeria. The issue is hanging on the neck of the federal government like a sort of dama The main crux of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which I commend very, very well, is that Nambi Kanua shouldn't have now reigned or brought before any court of law, for any charge when the manai which is brought into the country is unlawful, it breaches international obligations, international law, it even breaches domestic law and it's criminal in all its essence. So that you cannot, in committing unlawful people seek to seek a benefit. So the federal government doesn't have the powers, they do not, they lack, they mandate whatsoever, both under the constitution and under international law, to rein him in court to charge him for anything when the manai which is brought violates fundamental rights, violates international law, violates domestic law, violates the decency between the committee of nations. That's exactly what the Court of Appeals is saying. And they went for that to say that what the federal government has done amounts to executive recklessness when the judicial body uses that phrase that it tells you something that much more profound than that you have the might of the federal government to do what you like. The first time they use that was when the Lagos state government went into a frolic of its own in Yorjuku property in Lagos. The Supreme Court, I think it's also put a JGSE, Mehearest in the case that clearly stated that it's executive recklessness and there's no better way of putting it and it clearly tells you that it's an act of irresponsibility. It's an act that is unpalatable and it's an act that's unpalatable and it's an act that lacks any legal support. OK, but I was referring to the portion in which the panel of judges said that the respondent in not responding to the applicant's submission are conceded. What do they mean by that? Well, in fact, there are submissions made by a party and the other party does not respond to issues that they have conceded. But that concession is not the point. It's not that the federal court give that judgment on the basis of admission by the federal government lawyers. No, apparently it's very clear that on such very weighty appeal, appeal that has so much weight, I'm surprised that counsel or lawyers will not try to respond to issues of importance that are raised by the appellants. And if they do not raise it or even if they fail to respond to it, it's either that they do not have anything to respond to or the law is just against them and that's what happens. So it's not that the judgment is on the basis of that lack of response on the part of the federal government lawyers, but it's simply on the merits of the fact of the violation of fundamental rights, the violation of international law, the violation of the rules of due process, due process of the law, the fact of the violation of constitutional provisions relating to the fundamental rights of an applicant. So if that's the case, I mean, as it is, like you rightly stated, will that be the reason why the federal government is not honouring the court ruling, I mean the court of appeal to release? And also there's been this argument about Namdi Khan who been discharged and not acquitted. I'd like you to throw more light on that. Being discharged and not acquitted, does it mean that he shouldn't be released or he can go about? There's no reason other than the law and we have to find any justification for the continued detention of Namdi Khan, except for the fact that his right is being continuously violated by the federal government. The judgment of the court of appeal is very, very clear that you cannot charge him if any allegation they have against him relates with or pertains to the fact of the rendition of the reason why he was brought into the court. You cannot charge him. The only option I'm able to the federal government is to appeal and probably their appeal may not even be enough justification. It is not as a matter of fact enough justification to keep him in incarceration because the judgment is very, very clear. And remember it is not just the judgment of the court of appeal. The United Nations Human Rights Commission, which is also the human rights court of the world, has said that Namdi Khan who has not committed any offence known to law and his continued detention and trial and everything amounts to the amounts of violation of his fundamental right. As a matter of fact, the option being sought by the attorney general, Malami, he said there are options. I don't see any option available because I don't see them having any, I mean, any day in the Supreme Court in this matter as far as I'm concerned, it has become quite very, very notorious that we are dealing with persons who do not understand the entrails of the rule of law, the due process of the law. Constitutional supremacy, respect for international obligations and all that. So it's not a matter of discharged and acquitted. Whether he's acquitted or not, it's immaterial. If you look at the text of that job, it clearly says that you cannot charge into court by implication, you don't charge into court for any reason whatsoever. And even those charges that are still there, we are pushing all of them for the reason that the manner in which we brought him to court is of lawful, under international law, under domestic law, under the constitution, under civility, under decency. That's the crux of that judgment. Okay, Chief Oguche, whilst we're trying to get to the next question, please, you can slightly slide your chair a bit backward so that we can have the full compliment of seeing you. Yes, better, that's fine, that's okay. So, Messi was about to ask you a follow-up question, I believe, yeah? Yes, quickly. So I'd like to ask you, what is the reason behind some persons have described the rascality of the executive arm of government, that's the federal government, in constantly, especially in this case, we know they had several cases where the government has not respected the rule of law or has not respected court ruling and injunction. So what exactly is responsible for the executive rascality, if you like to say? How? Why have the federal government over time constantly, and it seems like the federal government is so powerful that no arm of government can check the excesses of the federal government. Because of our peer-use award, recklessness, executive recklessness, the first time the courts used it in Nigeria was under the military. Unfortunately, I think we have been disconnected, he's a legal practitioner, and we hope that we have him back so we can have further discussion as regards all of this. So there's been a lot of talk about whether or not there's an issue with being charged and acquitted, and that's the case. And so the government is also looking for all the legal option. Do we have Festus back? Festus, can you hear us? Yes, I'm here. What I was saying, and it's very, very clear, is that we are looking at the antecedents of some persons in this government. It was immediately, and then I said, Mario Dico was adopted on lovely, you know, I said, technically adopted, so he threw a bottle on them. Within this era, we had the judgment of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. First time we're having that kind of judgment in Nigeria. This failed to abide, so it can implement that judgment. Within this period of, since 2015, no single judgment of the Equals Committee Court of Justice has been obeyed and implemented. No single one of them. All the judgments in the federal government refers to ignore all of them. And I think it begins to see that though the international law is not binding on Nigeria, Nigeria is not a member of the United Nations, a member of the Equals Commission or the African Commission and does not belong to the Committee of Nations. You see, this is not obtaining totalitarian regimes. But there where I made democracy and these things are being done and people are getting away with it. I think this government has had the privilege of the indulgence of the courts much more bigger than any other one. And you will be surprised that it's the same administration that hounded the judges and justices and sent them to prison, treated them like criminals. Within the same government, the CJL, Chief Justice of Nigeria, you know, Walter O'Noggin, was removed from constitutionally. The manner that's marked in discussion total complete indecency. All right. And we are still living. Chief O'Gonchai, just before we go. Yes, yes. Chief O'Gonchai, just before we go, just a last final question to you before we go. Malami has talked about pre-rendition matters with the appeal court, you know, giving it truly on the rendition of Kano. They've said there are some matters that were in existence before he was rendered that are up for judicial determination. In you, if you recall clearly, he was under trial and was released on bail before jumping bail and leaving the country now. Would you expect that Kano will be let go, you know, despite the presence of these pre-rendition or pre-abduction, whichever the case may be, issues and cases and matters that are still up for judicial determination? Because he's proven to be still a flight risk. He's proven, he's done it. So he is a flight risk. I don't know what he means by a pre-rendition matters. The real matter is the judgment of the high courts of injustice, you know why? We don't know it is very, very direct and straightforward to the fact that Kano should be free. Yeah, but Baruch said that is a fundamental, that is a fundamental rights enforcement case. But before Kano was, yes, yeah. But on the charges of treason, before he was taken out of the country, he is facing trial for treason. Now, the appeal court, like you rightly said, has ruled on how he was brought into the country and they say was unconstitutional. Having said that he is already in Nigeria and he has a case to answer, and he was released on bail and jumped bail. So should the government, you know, should they throw away the formal case? Is that case still not on? Can they still not take him to court? Go clean the matter, you and I can not sit here and circumvent the judgment of the court of appeals. The judgment is very straight forward. And so also his man and me, he can not circumvent the judgment of, what does he mean by pre-election matters? Because of appeal he said that anything concerning him relating to the issue of which he was adopted cannot be tried in any court. Very straightforward. I took a careful look, a very circumspective look of that judgment and that's what he's saying. The judgment of the haircut of Umayya is very, very irrelevant here because he granted him, the judge granted bail to Namdikano from that court and that judgment will not respect him. So what pre-election matter will stop you from releasing somebody on bail, somebody who's been discharged by the court of appeal. I remember that the issue concerning Namdikano is one that invokes a whole lot of things. International criminal responsibility is there. And if I'm in one of these shoes, I will try to be a little bit careful to know the extent of my involvement because these things have a way of boomeranging on those in authority, particularly state actors. If at the end of the day, it is discovered they were passed on those who have adopted, firstly adopted the citizens from Kenya. All right, let's go back. I'd like to ask you this, we're really out of time just in a few seconds. Do you think that this is politically motivated? This is another dimension of the conversation. I mean, way back, some people think that history to this, a few months before the elections, you have some resurfacing of Namdikano. It's almost the same thing that happened in 2019. Now it's happening. And some people think that this judgment or the ruling of the court of appeal has, you know, there's a hand of politician. And it probably might just be, you know, the hand ahead of the 2023 elections. I'd like you to show your thoughts on that in a few seconds. Well, it's not something I can do in a few seconds because we all know the fact of the extent of political interference into the judicial affairs going by the final constitution allows the executive to make a point to promote and to give them room to meddle in the judicial affairs. But in a long time, we've been making case for the exclusion of the judiciary from the reign of our face, from the running of our face, you know, and the judicial system can always regulate itself and be self exclusive. But I don't see the hand of the judiciary or the politicians here. Like what happened is a case of clear court violation of fundamental rights. All right, all right. Chief, yeah, Chief, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Oh, yeah. Yes, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Please, for the want of time, we'll have to pull the plugs at this point. But we'll definitely have you back sooner than later to discuss this is all important matter. Because we need, I think 12 minutes is not even enough. Some lawyers are saying that the man has to answer for the original matter that took him to court. No, but if you... Sorry, Messi, for which he jumped bail. Now, what the court is saying is that, oh, okay, you approached us to appeal how you were brought into the country, how you were brought into the country was wrong. That's fine. But there is a matter that was there, it was granted, but he jumped bail. So has that matter been determined? The answer is no. And what Malami is saying is that that matter still needs to be determined. The court still needs to decide whether he can be... No, so coffee is very simple. I mean, let's move on. I think it's very simple. So Nigerians need to be clear on this that NAMD Canada has all been cleared of the charges. No, but that's not the reason why. It's like saying, give me money to do X, Y, Z. And you're saying I have money for this. And there's a command, go ahead. Money has been released or a certain injunction has been given. You need to obey that first. Respect the order that has been given. And then whatever consensus that you have, you can always follow up with it. For me, it's not an opinion. So I don't think that there should be contination. And that's what he's talked about, that if a court has moved, we should move forward. It's not about Malami. That's what we're saying. So it has nothing to do with what he stated it. The injunctions are quite clear. Whether or not the government has an issue, a statement has been put out. It's expected that you respect it. And let's move on. And that's what it is. For me, it's not my personal. I'm just trying to paint the picture for people to see where Malami is. But he stated it rightly. And that the courts did not speak in. We're here to paint to tell people what's going on. The court has not spoken in different language. I mean, like he stated, is we're emphasizing that the statements are clear? That is not what I'm saying that at least they should also get where Malami is coming from so they can have a balance view. That's all. As to whether Malami is right or wrong, that's not what I'm talking about. But it is a very heated subject, and I think we'll have some more time to talk about this. We'll take a break and when we come back, we'll look at our second major discussion this morning. Please stay with us.