Kanu’s Family Faults Fagbemi’s Stance on Continued Detention of IPOB Leader
Emmanuel Ugwu-Nwogo in Umuahia
The family of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has picked holes in the reasons given by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, for the continued detention and trial of the separatist agitator.
The AGF had reportedly said that the federal government would not free Kanu as his case was complicated, and since he is currently on trial, the matter would be allowed to run its full course in the court of law.
He also said that Kanu’s case was “remarkably different” and so he could not enjoy the same privilege extended to the convener of #RevolutionNow, Omoyele Sowore.
The activist and former presidential candidate was freed after his pending treasonable felony case was immediately withdrawn shortly after Fagbemi assumed office as AGF.
Reacting to Fagbemi’s stance on Kanu’s issue a the weekend, the spokesman of the IPOB leader’s family, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, said that the reasons adduced by the AGF smacked of contradiction and double standard.
He argued that the federal government should have freed the IPOB leader on October 13, 2022, when the Appeal Court in Abuja handed down a verdict that he should be set free immediately after absolving him of the charges brought by the government.
“The Appeal Court discharged Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The last time we checked, the Appeal Court Abuja Division is a competent court of law in Nigeria. So what has changed between the time the order of discharge was handed down and today?” Prince Emmanuel asked.
He also referenced the judgment of a Federal High Court that declared the kidnapping and detention of the Biafra self-determination activist as unlawful and arbitrary.
“Does it mean the Federal High Court that handed down this judgment is not a competent court of law in Nigeria?” the Kany family spokesman queried.
The federal government had ignored all the court verdicts previously delivered in Kanu’s favour during the discredited administration of Muhammadu Buhari, which was notorious for not obeying the rule of law.
It was expected that the President Bola Tinubu’s administration that came on board in May 2023 would have put right the wrongs of his predecessor as it concerned Kanu’s continued detention and trial.
Emmanuel said: “The fact that the AGF needs to bear in mind is that there seems to be a particular set or type of Judge they want to hear this matter outside the protection of the rule of law, which will never happen in this case.”
He drew the attention of the AGF to four critical laws in Nigeria (that) make the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu impossible.
According to him, Section 2 (3F) of the Terrorism Prevention & Prohibition Act 2022 “states very clearly and unambiguously that any attempt to conduct a kangaroo trial of a victim of kidnaping in defiance of the explicit provisions of the African Charter is committing an act of terrorism.
“This is a subsisting Nigerian law which no amount of judicial somersault can overcome.”
He further cited the same Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 at Section 2 (3) (g) which “makes the kidnapping of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu-as affirmed by the Supreme Court- an offence and an act of terrorism.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court explicitly called the act of the Federal Government of Nigeria criminal.
“We refer you once again to Section 15 of another Nigerian law known as the Extradition Act to the exclusion of any other law in Nigeria, makes it very clear that in so far as Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is concerned, only a Kenyan court can certify any charges ‘’triable’ in Nigeria. This is universally known as the Doctrine of Speciality.”
The Kanu family spokesman reminded the AGF that “these laws, written in simple understandable English, were made and passed by the National Assembly of Nigeria, which is the only organ constitutionally charged with law making not any court of law.
“Law courts interpret but are not lawmakers. No court can overturn these laws as long as they are extant and subsisting.”
Prince Emmanuel alluded that “there is an overwhelming financial incentive to secure the sham conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu by every means necessary, even if it means the destruction of the basic foundations of common law criminal jurisprudence in Nigeria.”
He stated that the federal government could go ahead with Kanu’s trial as already determined, adding: “But we can assure you that it won’t be easy for you.”
On the apparent silence of the AGF on the issue of Igboho, the Yoruba self-determination agitator, Prince Emmanuel simply said that it “tells you all you need to know.”
