Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has emphasized the persistent executive and judicial injustices he claims to have faced since his extraordinary rendition in 2021.
In an open letter to Nigerians, Kanu referenced a March 1, 2017, Federal High Court ruling that declared IPOB not an unlawful group, a decision that received significant attention. He noted that this ruling stemmed from criminal proceedings requiring “proof beyond reasonable doubt,” where both the federal government and he presented their cases.
Instead of appealing this ruling, former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami secretly conspired with late Abba Kyari to label IPOB a terrorist group through ex parte proceedings, conducted without notifying Kanu or IPOB. This incident marked the beginning of a fraudulent alliance between the government and judiciary to violate his rights and threaten the lives of millions associated with IPOB.
On October 26, 2022, a Federal High Court deemed Kanu’s extraordinary rendition and detention unconstitutional, citing severe violations of his fundamental rights. The court ordered the federal government to apologize and compensate him. In a responsible society, this judgment would have ended his prolonged detention and prompted constructive dialogue regarding the self-determination issues that initiated this conflict.
On October 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal asserted that courts must hold the executive accountable for “executive lawlessness,” emphasizing the need to protect individuals from oppressive actions. The court ruled that Kanu’s abduction from Kenya on June 27, 2021, violated both international and state laws, stripping any court of jurisdiction over his case.
READ ALSO: JUST IN: Lagos Assembly Suspends Plenary Indefinitely After Security Officers’ Breach.
Despite the clarity of this ruling, the federal government continued to detain him, collaborating with three justices of the Court of Appeal to issue a “stay of execution” that effectively undermined the initial judgment. It raises the question: how can a court stay a judgment that the government has already disobeyed? The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that those who disregard court orders cannot seek judicial relief until compliance occurs, yet this principle has been overlooked in Kanu’s case.
On December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court remanded his case to the Federal High Court for trial. One would expect the High Court to restore his bail upon receiving the case, but this did not happen. The court appeared to collude with the federal government to prolong his detention, violating Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution.
On September 24, 2024, Nnamdi Kanu lost faith in receiving justice from a judge who had previously denied him a fair hearing and refused to transfer him to prison for trial preparation. This led him to request the judge’s recusal, which was granted, but the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court failed to assign the case to another judge, instead sending it back to the recused judge.
Kanu clarifies that his letter should not imply a lack of trustworthy judges in Nigeria. The issue lies in the deliberate shielding of his case from judges committed to impartial justice, even if it means the federal government must lose.
Nnamdi Kanu concludes that if it takes the rest of his life in detention to be presented before a fair court, he will endure it. He asserts he will not submit to a trial conducted by any judge or court lacking constitutional legitimacy, now or ever.
