Biafra news. : Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyer Explains Why FG Must Release IPOB Leader

 

A member of the legal team defending the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

Onyedikachi Ifedi Esq., has launched a scathing attack on what he described as “government-sponsored propaganda” against IPOB, insisting that the Federal Government has no legal grounds to continue holding Kanu in custody.

The lawyer in a statement sent to BIAFRA NEWS on Monday referenced the Canadian Court’s designation of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the major opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as terrorist groups arguing that it happened “in a jurisdiction where justice is not for sale.”

Recall after the court decision in the past week, the Federal government rejected the designation arguing it amounted to meddling in the internal affairs of the country and called the Canadian government to renounce it.

However, the lawyer who is a member of Nnamdi Kanu’s global defence team said, “while APC-controlled propaganda outlets call IPOB a terrorist group, the civilized world has already branded APC itself as the terrorist. The irony is self-evident.”

Ifedi also argued that Kanu’s abduction from Kenya in June 2021 was a breach of both domestic and international law.

“The Nigerian government abducted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya in June 2021 in a classic case of extraordinary rendition — an act prohibited under both domestic Nigerian and international law,” he said.

He cited the Court of Appeal judgment in FRN v. Kanu (CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022) delivered on October 13, 2022, which held that Kanu’s rendition violated his fundamental rights and nullified the proceedings.

“Instead of respecting this binding judgment, the Nigerian Supreme Court in its 15 December 2023 ruling somersaulted, violating centuries of settled law by remitting a case that had already been nullified. That, dear reader, is the real theatre,” Ifedi added.

The lawyer accused the Federal Government of prosecuting Kanu under a repealed statute — the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.

“The prosecution insists on trying Mazi Nnamdi Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, a law that had been repealed by Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022,” he noted.

“Therefore, every count predicated on the TPAA 2013 is a legal corpse. Yet the Nigerian judiciary continues to entertain it. That is theatre of the absurd.”

He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) which held that “where a statute creating an offence is repealed, the offence and all liabilities created thereunder die a natural death.”

According to Ifedi, the government has failed to prove the basic elements of a criminal case against Kanu.

“No victim. No weapon. No violent act was attributed personally to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. At best, speeches and broadcasts — which are constitutionally protected under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter,” he explained.

Citing Nwankwo v. State (1983), he added, “Mere expression of opinion, however distasteful to the government, cannot constitute a criminal offence unless it falls squarely within the statutory definition. Thus, criminalizing speech is nothing but dictatorship dressed as law.”

Ifedi further insisted that any appellate discharge of Kanu already amounts to acquittal in law.

“It is settled law that where an appellate court finds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, or that the charge itself is fundamentally defective, the proper order is not a mere ‘discharge’ but an acquittal,” he said.

He cited Abacha v. State (2002), Ezeze v. State (2004) and Oladipo v. State (2013), which held that defective charges terminate proceedings in favour of the accused.

“Since the charges are founded on a repealed statute and brought in violation of jurisdiction through extraordinary rendition, any order of ‘discharge’ by an appellate court is in law an acquittal.

*To call it otherwise would expose Kanu to the spectre of double jeopardy expressly forbidden under Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution,” he maintained.

The lawyer further argued that the real “theatrics” are not in IPOB’s agitation but in Abuja’s legal and political maneuvers

“Theatrics are not in IPOB’s demand for acquittal. The real theatrics are: a Supreme Court that upholds a repealed law, a prosecution that cannot prove actus reus or mens rea, a government that commits international crimes yet seeks to sit in judgment over its victim, and propaganda outlets that hide under faceless authorship instead of engaging the law,” he said.

“IPOB is not begging for acquittal; IPOB is demanding justice under the Constitution and international law. History, like law, is on IPOB’s side.”