By Emem Ekpenyong
FRN v KANU (2023) LPELR- 79929 (SC) – Part 1
A lot of misinformation has been circulated about what the Supreme Court (SC) decided in the above case. I was not invested in Mazi’s case until he raised the ‘no written law’ submission and thoroughly abused the court in the process. I think he also made reference to the SC’s decision. After his conviction, mischief makers have been trying to incite the public against the learned Justice Omotosho, citing the SC’s judgement. I read My Lord escaped an assassination attempt. If this is true, is it right for a Judex doing his lawful duty to be so threatened?
I went searching for the said SC case and read the entire judgement. A very lengthy judgement. I will share some of the holdings verbatim to disabuse the minds of those who are open to learning. The noise from mischief makers is so loud that if there is no concerted effort to drown this noise with facts, Judges will be exposed to unneccessary attacks. Legal consultants ought to have read and honestly interpreted the judgement to Mazi, but they prefer content creation and jeopardizing the life of a brillant Judge.
Mazi was arraigned before the FHC on a 15 counts amended charge. The FHC while ruling on the preliminary objection of Mazi’s team held that counts 6, 7, 9-14 did not disclose any offence and some were duplication. The FHC struck them out. Counts 1-5, 8 and 15 were retained. Mazi approached the CA. The CA held that the forcible abduction and extraordinary rendition of Mazi in violation of international and state laws stripped the FHC of jurisdiction to entertain charges against Mazi. The CA made reference to the Extradiction Act. Accordingly the charges retained by the FHC were struck out. Mazi was discharged.
Not acquitted.
I have read someone who claimed the CA acquitted and discharged Mazi. For emphasis, Mazi was only DISCHARGED NOT ACQUITTED
The matter got to the SC. Mazi filed a cross-appeal. The SC reviewed the charges. Charges 1-5 and 8 were offences under the Terrorism Act. While charge 15 was an offence tied to the Criminal Code Act. Upon evaluation of the charges, the SC noted that charge 15 was an offence under the Customs and Excise Management Act, and not under the Criminal Code Act. The SC held that such was a mere mistake. It reiterated the trite principle of law that a charge preferred or filed for offences under a wrong law, did not render the charge invalid or incompetent, as long as the offence is known, defined and punished in an existing law.
To be continued…
