The legal team representing Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has launched a scathing criticism of the Nigerian judiciary and prosecutors, accusing them of collusion and undermining justice in his ongoing trial for treason and terrorism-related charges.
At a press conference held in Abuja on Thursday, Kanu’s Special Counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, described the legal proceedings against their client as a “mock trial.” Ejimakor and his team alleged that the judiciary, in partnership with the prosecution, has employed technicalities, undue influence, and procedural manipulations to ensure Kanu remains detained without proper recourse to justice.
Accusations of Collusion
Ejimakor accused the prosecution of exploiting “undue technicalities” and using confidential leaks to influence court decisions. He argued that these tactics have resulted in decisions that consistently favor the Federal Government while denying Kanu his fundamental rights.
“There is an unholy alliance between the prosecution and the judiciary,” he stated. “The Court of Appeal has repeatedly refused to hear appeals on their merits, citing the need for more time to study the cases. Yet, the same court allows the prosecution to file motions that overturn previous rulings, even when there are robust arguments against such motions.”
The team claimed that this alleged alliance has left them unable to challenge what they described as “state-sanctioned extrajudicial detention.”
The Persecution Narrative
Kanu’s legal representatives painted a grim picture of his ordeal, describing it as persecution rather than prosecution. According to Ejimakor, Kanu has faced numerous obstacles, including restricted access to his legal team, deliberate delays in trial proceedings, and a refusal to assign his case to another judge apart from Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court.
“This is not a criminal trial but persecution,” Ejimakor asserted. “The Federal Government has demonstrated a clear intent to deny Nnamdi Kanu his right to a fair trial. This includes unending adjournments, procedural compromises, and blatant efforts to hinder his defense preparation.”
Referencing a precedent set in Abacha vs. State (2002) LPELR-16(SC), Ejimakor emphasized that courts have a duty to ensure that trials are conducted without oppression. “The law is clear: no accused person should be subjected to proceedings that, from the outset, were never meant to deliver justice.”
A Call for Judicial Reform
Ejimakor called on the judiciary to demonstrate impartiality by transferring Kanu’s case to a different judge. “We expect that normal prosecution commences before another judge of the Federal High Court who will uphold the principles of fair hearing,” he said.
The team expressed frustration with the Federal Government’s reliance on Justice Nyako, who has presided over Kanu’s case since its inception. They argued that such singular oversight raises questions about impartiality and fairness.
Background and Context
Nnamdi Kanu has been at the center of one of Nigeria’s most controversial legal battles. Arrested in 2015 and charged with treason, Kanu fled the country after being granted bail in 2017. He was rearrested in 2021 under contentious circumstances involving international cooperation, leading to widespread criticism from human rights groups.
The IPOB leader has been a vocal advocate for the secession of southeastern Nigeria, a position that has drawn ire from the Federal Government and resulted in his designation as a security threat. His supporters argue that Kanu is a freedom fighter, while the government maintains that his actions have incited violence.
A Legal Deadlock
The legal team’s criticism comes amid a prolonged trial marked by frequent adjournments and procedural disputes. The Court of Appeal’s handling of the case has drawn particular ire, with Kanu’s counsel accusing the judiciary of deliberately delaying proceedings to frustrate their client’s defense.
“In the last three months, the Court of Appeal has refused to entertain appeals critical to Kanu’s case, claiming they need more time to deliberate. Yet, motions filed by the prosecution are quickly granted, even when they are baseless,” Ejimakor noted.
The delays, he argued, are not incidental but part of a calculated effort to deny Kanu justice.
As Kanu’s trial continues, his legal team has vowed to persist in their efforts to secure his release. “This case is not just about Nnamdi Kanu; it’s about the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial system,” Ejimakor concluded.
The IPOB leader remains in detention, and his case has become a flashpoint for broader discussions about justice, governance, and the rule of law in Nigeria. Whether the judiciary can rise above allegations of bias remains to be seen.
