Biafra: Lawyers Strategize Next Moves As Kanu’s Court Case Prolongs

Biafra: Lawyers Strategize Next Moves As Kanu’s Court Case Prolongs....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

As the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), continues to drag on, concerns are rising over the withdrawal of judges from his case…..CONTINUE READING 

The Nigerian government has been prosecuting Kanu since 2015 on various charges, including treasonable felony and terrorism. In 2017, Justice Binta Nyako of the Abuja Federal High Court granted him bail in the amount of N100 million. However, Kanu fled Nigeria after the military allegedly invaded his residence in Afaraukwu, Abia State. He was later rearrested in July 2021 in Kenya and extradited back to Nigeria, where he was re-arraigned on terrorism charges.

In October 2022, the Court of Appeal in Abuja discharged and acquitted Kanu of all 15 counts, deeming them illegal and unlawful. The court ruled that the federal government violated both local and international laws by extraditing Kanu from Kenya, rendering the terrorism charges against him incompetent. However, the Supreme Court mandated that Kanu return to the High Court for a fresh trial.

Since the trial began in 2015, three judges have recused themselves from Kanu’s case. Justice Ahmed Mohammed stepped down in December 2015 after Kanu expressed a lack of confidence in him. Justice John Tsoho withdrew in September 2016 following accusations of “judicial rascality” made by Kanu’s then-lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, in a petition to the National Judiciary Council (NJC). Tsoho stated he would not continue with the case even if cleared of bias. Most recently, in September 2024, Justice Binta Nyako also recused herself after Kanu declared a lack of confidence in her.

Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, indicated that the repeated withdrawals of judges from Kanu’s trial reflect a broader issue within the judiciary. He remarked, “This is clear evidence that the judiciary is facing challenges or conflicts in reaching a verdict on whether Kanu committed any real offense. The Court of Appeal’s acquittal and its subsequent reversal by the Supreme Court raise further questions about judicial integrity.”

Ejimakor further argued that restoring Kanu’s bail, as directed by the Supreme Court, would prevent further judicial withdrawals. He emphasized that Kanu should not be held in detention conditions that obstruct his legal preparations and that he should be held in a proper correctional facility, rather than in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).

Activist lawyer Madubuachi Idam echoed these sentiments, advocating for a fair trial that avoids unnecessary delays caused by the state’s actions. He stated, “The prolonged nature of this case is not due to Kanu or his team but rather to the state’s amendments and procedural delays. A swift trial is essential, as the continued prosecution has not resolved any issues in Nigeria.”

Both lawyers acknowledged that Kanu’s case remains open to both political and judicial resolutions. Ejimakor noted, “We are actively working to ensure Kanu’s case is treated according to the Constitution and principles of equity.”

Idam speculated that President Bola Tinubu might be considering a political solution, suggesting that consultations are ongoing among relevant stakeholders. “There’s potential for a political resolution, as we have yet to see definitive statements from the current administration regarding Kanu, unlike previous governments,” he remarked. He urged the president to utilize his powers to enter a Nolle prosequi, ending the prosecution that continues to fuel political tension.

For more information on this article and other related posts from Bushradiogist, please join our WhatsApp channel by clicking this link https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaUumOODTkK7AZL1Fw3o. For advertisement inquiries only, kindly send a message to 090 1907 0863 on WhatsApp.