One of the lawyers of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Aloy Ejimakor, has lamented how the Nigeria Government misled Kenya into releasing Kanu to them.
On June 29th, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, (AGF). Abubakar Malami, announced to a bewildered nation that Kanu had been “brought back to Nigeria in order to continue facing trial after disappearing” without disclosing where he was arrested.
It was later learnt that Kanu was arrested in Kenya, which the Kenyan Government denied.
In a statement on Sunday, Ejimakor explained that Kanu is “technically still in Kenya.”
Ejimakor reasoned that since Kanu travelled to Kenya on a British passport, he should have been sent back to the same country and not Nigeria.
Ejimakor, in a statement he signed entitled: “Kanu Is Technically Still In Kenya,” said it was dubious that Kenya attributed Kanu’s citizenship to Nigeria because it’s his place of birth.
Ejimakor’s statement reads in part: “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, 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.”