By Izunna Okafor
A United Kingdom-based court has granted the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazị Nnamdi Kanu the permission to apply for judicial review over the UK government’s inaction and failure to intervene in his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021.
According to a court document made available to 247UREPORTS by Kanu’s special counsel, Barr. Ejimakor, the case was filed before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, by his brother, Kingsley Kanu.
The case, which has Kingsley Kanu as the Claimant also has the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, as the Defendant
The first section of the 3-paged document stated that in an Order made by The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE, the court held that “The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.”
Another section of the document, titled ‘Observations’ added that the application is to be listed for one day, at an in-person hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, and that the parties are to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of the order if they disagree with this direction.
It said: “1. The Claimant’s challenge is to an ongoing refusal by the Defendant to reach, and communicate to the Claimant and his family, a firm (i.e non-provisional) view as to whether the Claimant’s brother has been the subject of extraordinary rendition. It is said that:
“a. (ground 1) absent a firm view, albeit one which could change were further evidence to be provided in due course, the Defendant cannot meaningfully exercise her discretion;
“b. (ground 2) if, as a matter of principle, the forming of a provisional view is lawful, it is unlawful on the evidence available to the Defendant in this case; and
“c. (ground 3) fairness requires that the Defendant inform the Claimant of the provisional view which she has formed and of the factors which have prevented her from reaching a firm view.
“2. I am satisfied that all such grounds are arguable. As R (Abassi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and An’r [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 makes clear, at [92] and [99-100], the Defendant’s consideration of whether to make representations will at least start from a formulated view as to whether there is a breach of the relevant international obligations and, unless and until the Defendant has formed some judgment as to the ‘vital factor’ of the gravity of the miscarriage, it is impossible for that balance to be properly conducted.
“Such decisions/inaction are, in principle, reviewable and do not enter forbidden areas, including decisions affecting foreign policy: Abassi [106(iii)]. In some cases, the Defendant might be expected to give reasons for her decision; in others, she might not: Abassi [105]. These are fact-sensitive questions and it is appropriate that this case proceed to a substantive hearing to enable their determination on the relevant facts.”
Justice DBE, in the order, also gave directions on the management of the case.
Recall that Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since June 2021, after he was captured in Kenya and renditioned to Nigeria.
In the light of the new development, a Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia, Abia State has scheduled Tuesday, October 4, 2022, to hear Kanu’s extraordinary rendition suit, which was filed before it in March.
Kanu’s counsel, Ejimakor, who made this known in a statement issued to newsmen on Thursday, said suit is primarily aimed at redressing the infamous unlawful expulsion or extraordinary rendition of Kanu.
He said, “The Suit is sui generis (of a special class) and it is primarily aimed at redressing the infamous unlawful expulsion or extraordinary rendition of Nnamdi Kanu, which is a clear violation of his fundamental rights under Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, as well as Chapter IV of the Nigerian Constitution.
“In addition to the rendition, I am asking the Court to redress the myriad violations that came with the rendition, such as the torture, the unlawful detention and the denial of the right to fair hearing which is required by law before anybody can be expelled from one country to the other. I am also seeking to halt his prosecution and restore him to the status quo before he was renditioned on 19th June, 2021.”
