Why court should free Nnamdi Kanu – IPOB

yarkarkara yarkarkara
Jul 23, 2025 - 18:00
0 0
Kanu raises alarm, alleges tricks by FG to perpetually hold him down Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has drawn attention to what he described as serial executive and judicial fraud being perpetrated against him since his extraordinary rendition in 2021. In an open letter addressed to Nigerians yesterday, Kanu said: ‘’In a judgment entered on March 1, 2017, the Federal High Court, Abuja, ruled that the ‘IPOB is not an unlawful group’. At the time, it received widespread publicity which can be verified. ‘’This landmark ruling (made by the court before it turned unjust) emanated in a criminal proceedings that required ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and in which the federal government and my humble self presented our respective cases. ‘’Alas! Instead of the federal government to go on appeal as the law mandated (if they are dissatisfied with the judgment), the former Attorney-General (Abubakar Malami) went behind closed doors with a letter signed by late Abba Kyari and got IPOB proscribed/tagged a terrorist group in an ex parte proceedings that conducted without notice to me or to the IPOB. ‘’This abominable incident was the earliest sign yet that the government and its judiciary have struck an unholy and fraudulent alliance to deny me my rights and thereby imperil the life and liberty of millions who identity with IPOB. ‘’On October 26, 2022, a Federal High Court declared my extraordinary rendition and detention as unconstitutional, stating that: ‘the manner of arrest and detention of the Applicant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) in Kenya, his continued detention in Abuja, his subjection to physical and mental trauma by the Respondents, the inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to the Applicant amounts to a brazen violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of his person and threat to life under Section 34 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).’ ‘’The court further ordered the federal government to apologize to me and pay me compensation. In a responsible society and well-ordered, run by a responsible government, this judgment is sufficient to have ended my lengthy detention and encourage the federal government to constructively engage me on the issue of the self-determination agitation that triggered this whole saga. ‘’Pedal back to October 13, 2022, when the Court of Appeal held that: ‘The courts must never shy away from calling the executive to order when they resort to acts of ‘executive lawlessness.’ ‘’The duty of the courts is to maintain a balance between ensuring that law and order is obeyed and the protection of the individual from oppressive actions by the executive. ‘’By the forcible abduction and extraordinary rendition of the Appellant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) from Kenya to this country on the 27th day of June 2021, in violation of international and state laws, the lower court or, indeed, any court in this country is divested of jurisdiction to entertain charges against the Appellant’. ‘’Despite the clarity of this judgment and its comportment with reason, the federal government refused to release me from detention while it went behind closed doors and connived with three other justices of the court of appeal who fraudulently and swiftly sat on appeal over the judgment and practically destroyed it by issuing what they termed ‘a stay of execution’. ‘’One may then ask: Is it not abominable for a court to stay a judgment the government already disobeyed? In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has held that anybody who disobeys a related court order cannot be given any judicial relief until such order is obeyed. ‘’This is a sound reasoning that applied to everybody but is fraudulently overlooked when it comes to my case. Fast forward to 15th December 2023 when the Supreme Court sent back my case to the Federal High Court for trial. ‘’For avoidance of doubt, that was not the only decision the Supreme Court made. It also decided that my bail should not have been revoked and it went on to state clearly that the judge exhibited significant and unacceptable bias by revoking my bail. ‘’In a sane society, one would expect that when the High court received my case from the Supreme Court and hankered down for trial, it was also duty-bound to restore my bail in line with the pronouncement of the apex court. ‘’But that did not happen. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine and that is: the Court connived with the federal government to continue my detention in violation of Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution. ‘’On September 24, 2024, I decided that I have had enough of taking my chances at getting justice from a judge that, in June 2021, sent me to secret police detention without fair hearing, later refused to transfer me to prison to better prepare for my trial and capped it all by refusing to restore my bail and instead ordering an accelerated trial in the face of the reality that I will never get a fair trial whilst detained at the DSS. ‘’These are the major reasons that compelled me to request recusal of the judge and having consented to it, she proceeded to make an order removing herself from my case. That order was never challenged on appeal; thus it remains extant to this day. ‘’But instead of the Chief judge of the Federal High Court to do the lawful thing by assigning my case to another judge, he connived with the federal government to eat crow and send my case to a judge that stands recused by a valid order. ‘’To conclude this open letter, let me make it clear that it should in no way be construed to mean that there are no decent judges in Nigeria that can be trusted to deliver even-handed justice in my case. That is not the issue. ‘’Instead, the issue is that my case is deliberately being shielded from judges and justices that are deemed to be committed to doing justice, even when it means that the federal government must lose. ‘’Be that as it may, if it will take the rest of my life in detention to produce me before a proper and impartial court, so be it. But let me say this for the world to know: I will not succumb to any trial conducted by any judge or court whose jurisdiction does not pass constitutional muster. Not now, not ever.’’

By Chimaobi Nwaiwu

NNEWI——— THE Indigenous People of Biafra IPOB has given reasons why the Federal High Court in Abuja should release its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, without further delay.

IPOB in a statement yesterday by its Spokesman/Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, titled “Eight questions that must be answered before any talk of trial: Why Nigeria has no case against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu” reminded the Federal High Court Abuja that Justice Binta Nyako, once told Nigerians state that no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence to prosecute its case.

IPOB, on its part, told the Federal High Court in Abuja that no court can substitute sentiment for law, as ruling on “No-Case Submission” of its leader Kanu approaches.

IPOB’s statement read, “Justice Binta Nyako once told the Nigerian State that no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence.

“Today, we wish to remind His Lordship Justice James Omotosho that no court can substitute sentiment for law.

“As the ruling on the No-Case Submission of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu approaches, these are the questions every citizen, every lawyer, every judge and Justice Omotosho himself must answer before pronouncing whether there is a case to answer or not.

“If these questions are not answered affirmatively and lawfully, then the prosecution has failed, and the court has no choice but to discharge the Defendant.

IPOB is therefore asking the Federal High Court Abuja, “Can prima facie case be established in the absence of an investigation report? Adding that an investigation report is a vital foundation in establishing the elements of a charge and linking it to the accused.

Citing that case of Ikomi v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.28) 340, it said the Supreme Court held that, “Failure to conduct a proper investigation renders the entire prosecution incurably defective.”

“In this case, no investigation report linking Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to the specific allegations such as incitement, terrorism and treason, has been produced. The lack of any forensic trail or investigative analysis is fatal to the charge.”

It further asked, “Can a prima facie case be established only on the testimony of 5 DSS officers? When the testimony is uncorroborated or partisan. In Adele v. The State (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 377) 269, the Court of Appeal warned that evidence of security operatives must be approached with caution, especially where the accused is in conflict with the State.

“Moreover, in Musa v. The State (2019) LPELR-46920(CA), the court ruled that mere repetition of hearsay evidence or intelligence from anonymous sources cannot constitute proof of any element of an offence.

“In this case, all five DSS officers are compromised by their institutional bias, and none has provided firsthand knowledge of any offence. This is not evidence; it is theatre.

“Can a prima facie case be said to have been made without a collaborator named in the charge? It said it cannot adding that in charges involving conspiracy or group intent, the failure to name or arraign collaborators renders the charge speculative. See Patrick Njovens & Ors v. The State (1973) LPELR-SC.48/1973, where the Supreme Court held that criminal liability cannot be stretched into abstraction without establishing joint action or intention.

“In the present case, the prosecution alleges “leadership” of a proscribed group and makes veiled references to others, yet fails to name or bring any co-defendants. This is legally untenable.

“Can a prima facie case be established without a victim? It also said no and not where the offense presupposes harm or threat to a person or property. Citing Onagoruwa v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.303) 49, the court emphasized the necessity of establishing a victim or injured party in crimes of violence, incitement, or harm.

“Who was incited? Who was attacked? Who is the injured party? None has been presented. No complainant has testified. The absence of a named or identified victim renders the allegation empty.”

It further asked “Can prima facie be established solely on account of IPOB leadership? It said absolutely not. Mere association with an organization even one proscribed under ex parte proceedings does not ipso facto establish criminal liability. Citing Eze v. FRN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.51) 506, the court warned against criminalizing mere status or political identity.

“Furthermore, in Asari Dokubo v. FRN (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1048) 320, the Supreme Court affirmed that the government must prove that the accused did more than belong to a group; it must prove a criminal act.

“No such act has been identified in Mazi Kanu’s case. The charge is based solely on assumed guilt by association, a perversion of justice.

“Can broadcast alone establish a prima facie case? No. Mere broadcast, absent evidence of causation, or specific unlawful outcomes, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge. In Nwankwo v. The State (1985) 6 NCLR 228, the court held that freedom of expression includes criticism of the government, unless such speech can be forensically established or linked to violence.

“Moreover, the place of broadcast, and whether it falls within Nigerian jurisdiction, must be proven especially when international boundaries are involved. The prosecution has failed to identify time, place, or audience affected.

“Can negative outcome on all the above still lead to a conviction? The answer is no. If all foundational elements collapse, no conviction is possible. In Ajiboye v. The State (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.414) 408, the court declared that if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case, the trial court must discharge the accused.

“Where there is no victim, no investigator, no co-conspirator, no actus reus, no jurisdictional link, the law cannot proceed to conviction on air.

“Can ex parte proscription establish a prima facie case? Never is the answer. A proscription order granted ex parte (without hearing the accused) has no evidential weight in a criminal trial. In Chief Gani Fawehinmi v. Akilu & Anor. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797, the Supreme Court insisted that due process cannot be bypassed for expediency.

“A proscription obtained without hearing IPOB or Mazi Kanu is administrative, not judicial. It cannot substitute for proof of a criminal offence. Moreover, proscription itself is under challenge, rendering it judicially unsettled and incompetent as a basis for conviction.”

IPOB concluded that “The Nigerian Government has no case unless Justice Omotosho, wishes to join those who have desecrated Nigeria’s judiciary, he must answer these questions honestly, lawfully, and courageously.

“Any court that sidesteps these critical issues is no longer a court of justice but a tool of oppression. If the prosecution is relying on “No investigation report”
only DSS witnesses without firsthand knowledge, no identified victims, no named collaborators, no jurisdiction over the alleged broadcasts and and a dubious ex parte proscription….then there is no case to answer.

“This is not just a legal crisis. This is a moral reckoning. And to all Nigerians South, North, East, and West this is a test of how long you will allow injustice to reign under the guise of the law.”

The post Why court should free Nnamdi Kanu – IPOB appeared first on Vanguard News.

Read More