A lawyer representing the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Christopher Chidera, has accused the Federal Government of being both the “terrorist” and prosecutor in the ongoing legal case involving detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
Key Highlights
- Lawyer Christopher Chidera accuses the Federal Government of being both “terrorist and prosecutor” in Nnamdi Kanu’s case.
- He cited findings by the Nigerian Supreme Court concerning Kanu’s removal from Kenya.
- A Kenyan High Court had reportedly described Kanu’s abduction and removal as unlawful and unconstitutional.
- Chidera argued that Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act contains provisions covering kidnapping and certain treaty violations.
Chidera made the allegation in a petition addressed to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the International Bar Association (IBA), arguing that findings by the Supreme Court of Nigeria and a Kenyan court raised fundamental questions about the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s return from Kenya to Nigeria.
He questioned the legal basis for the continuation of Kanu’s terrorism trial after the Court of Appeal had discharged and acquitted him.
The lawyer said the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the trial to continue contained six fundamental legal errors.
Lawyer Cites Supreme Court, Kenyan Court Rulings
Chidera argued that findings in the Nigerian Supreme Court and a ruling by a Kenyan court established what he described as serious legal contradictions in the Federal Government’s handling of Kanu’s case.
According to him, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Nigerian agents kidnapped and abducted Kanu before subjecting him to extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria.
He cited the judgment of Justice Emmanuel Agim, who, according to Chidera, described the conduct as “prohibited by law” and “brazen lawlessness” and found that the prosecution had become “unfair and oppressive.”
Chidera, however, questioned why the trial was allowed to continue despite those findings.
“And yet the trial continued,” he said.
The lawyer also relied on provisions of Kenyan and Nigerian law to argue that the manner in which Kanu was brought back to Nigeria amounted to kidnapping under Kenyan law.
Lawyer Cites Kenyan Kidnapping Law
Chidera referred to Kenya’s Penal Code, which he said defines kidnapping to include conveying a person beyond the limits of Kenya without that person’s consent.
He argued that because Kanu was in Kenya before being taken to Nigeria without his consent, the circumstances fell within the statutory definition of kidnapping under Kenyan law.
Read Also:
- Nnamdi Kanu Appeal: Defence Team Challenges FG to Defend Terrorism Conviction in Court
- Nnamdi Kanu Rejected Transfer From Sokoto Prison To Abuja, Wife Reveals
- Nnamdi Kanu’s Wife Denies Divorce Reports, Calls Claims False
He further cited a Kenyan High Court ruling which, according to him, declared Kanu’s abduction and forcible removal from Kenya unlawful and unconstitutional.
Chidera said the Kenyan court found that there had been no extradition proceedings and that Kanu’s abduction and incommunicado confinement were unlawful.
Lawyer Links Kanu’s Case to Nigeria’s Terrorism Law
Chidera also cited provisions of Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, arguing that the law contains provisions relating to kidnapping and acts that violate international treaties to which Nigeria is a party.
According to the lawyer, Section 2(3)(f) covers acts that violate an international treaty or resolution to which Nigeria is a party, while Section 2(3)(g)(ii) covers acts involving or resulting in the kidnapping of a person.
He argued that the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a party and which has been domesticated into Nigerian law, provides protections against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Chidera therefore contended that the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s removal from Kenya should be examined alongside Nigeria’s own terrorism legislation.
“The state is a terrorist by its own law,” he claimed.
He argued that if kidnapping and certain treaty violations fall within the definition of terrorism under the law, the Federal Government should not, in his view, be able to prosecute Kanu for terrorism after allegedly engaging in conduct covered by the same provisions.
“The state cannot be both the terrorist and the prosecutor. The perpetrator of the crime cannot be the accuser,” Chidera said.
Lawyer Challenges Continuation of Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial
Chidera further challenged the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 decision that allowed the terrorism proceedings against Kanu to continue.
He said the ruling was based on six fundamental legal errors and argued that those alleged errors had consequences for the subsequent trial and the conviction entered by Justice James Omotosho.
The lawyer also questioned the legal basis for restoring some of the counts in the charge against Kanu.
According to him, those counts had initially been quashed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment that discharged and acquitted the IPOB leader.
Chidera argued that neither the court nor the prosecution had adequately explained the legal basis for restoring the counts.
Nnamdi Kanu Case Remains Controversial
Kanu’s case has remained one of Nigeria’s most closely watched terrorism and constitutional law cases, with legal debates surrounding his arrest, removal from Kenya, trial and the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts.
The latest petition by Chidera adds another layer to the legal arguments surrounding the case, particularly the circumstances of Kanu’s return to Nigeria and the implications of previous judicial findings.
The allegations contained in the petition represent Chidera’s legal position and remain subject to determination by the appropriate courts and legal authorities.
