Aloy Ejimakor, one of the special counsels to incarcerated leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu, has accused the Nigerian government of deceiving the government of Kenya to extradite the fugitive to Nigeria instead of the United Kingdom.
In a statement on his Facebook page on Sunday, Ejimakor explained that technically, Kanu is still in Kenya as he had traveled to the East African country on a British passport and as such, should have been extradited to the UK and not Nigeria.
Mike Igbokwe SAN Collections Now Available for purchase ~• For enquiries and Details, Call Winifred Tayo-Oyetibo on 08177770462 or +234(01) 4620907, 4620807 Ext. 122 ~•• CLICK VIDEO Below.
The Trajectory of excellence in Legal practice
The Dynamism of law and practi e in Nigeria
Nigerian Maritme Cabotage policy and law
“Kanu is technically still in Kenya. Yes, that’s right: In the purest interpretations of foreign relations law, as applied to Britain and Kenya, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is technically speaking, still in Kenya. How?
“Dual national or not, Kanu departed Britain and travelled to kenya as a British citizen and Kenya admitted him as such. That’s the starting point.
“So, after his admission to Kenya, it happens that Kanu must be expelled from Kenyan soil (with or without due process), the next natural and legal thing to do is for Kenya to expel him to Britain, not Nigeria.
“Choosing to expel him to Nigeria means that he could’ve also been expelled to any other country than Nigeria.
Why? Because Kanu presented himself to Kenya as a British citizen, not a Nigerian citizen or even a dual citizen.“In international law, it was clearly a three-way immigration contract between Kanu, Britain and Kenya.“Nigeria was not a party to it; and Nigeria was never in reckoning at the Kenyan port of entry when Kanu presented himself for admission. Lawyers call it the privity of contract.
Counting from the time of Kanu’s abduction to the infamous rendition, Kenya sighted no other travel document that could’ve, in addition to Britain, attributed another nationality to Kanu, including that of Nigeria. Or, was Kanu admitted to Kenya on a Nigerian birth certificate?
“So, it’s dubious that Kenya attributed Nigerian citizenship to Kanu because sponsors of the abduction and rendition presumably told Kenya that Kanu was born in Nigeria.
“What about the credible claims (in public domain) that Kanu had renounced his Nigerian citizenship? If place of birth should count, then renunciation should count for more.
“Kanu is 53 years old. Out of this, he has spent some 30 years in Britain and 23 years in Nigeria. His wife and children are domiciled in Britain and they are British citizens, either by birth or naturalization. Kanu has his home in Britain and pays his taxes there.
“Therefore, as a strict matter of foreign relations law, as applied to Britain and Kenya (minus Nigeria), Kanu is technically still in Kenya. How? Because Kenya was the last country in which Kanu – a bonafide British citizen was lawfully admitted.
“In view of the foregoing, the next best steps for Britain to take, especially in the face of Nigeria’s intransigence, is to ask Kenya to account for the whereabouts of her citizen, Nnamdi Kanu, last seen in Kenya as of June 19th, 2021, as her Majesty’s subject and a free citizen of Britain, not a criminal suspect.
Newswire Law and Events Magazine is Out. It's a collector's item. Get one - or two,or more - for yourself and loved ones.