Nnamdi Kanu Raises Alarm Over Alleged Judicial and Executive Tricks to Perpetuate His Detention

Introduction

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has issued an open letter to Nigerians, accusing the Nigerian government and judiciary of engaging in a series of fraudulent actions aimed at prolonging his detention. He highlights multiple court rulings in his favor that have been ignored or overturned through alleged backdoor maneuvers.

IPOB’s Legal Status: A Landmark Judgment Ignored

Kanu references a Federal High Court judgment delivered on March 1, 2017, which declared that IPOB is not an unlawful group. This ruling was made after both the federal government and Kanu presented their cases in a criminal proceeding requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, instead of appealing the decision as required by law, the then-Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, obtained an ex parte order proscribing IPOB as a terrorist organization without notifying Kanu or IPOB.

This action, according to Kanu, marked the beginning of a pattern where the government and judiciary colluded to deny him justice.

Unconstitutional Rendition and Detention

On October 26, 2022, another Federal High Court ruled that Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya and subsequent detention were unconstitutional. The court described these actions as a “brazen violation” of Kanu’s fundamental rights under Section 34(1)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution. The court further ordered the federal government to apologize to Kanu and pay compensation. Despite this clear directive, the government refused to comply.

Instead, three justices of the Court of Appeal swiftly convened behind closed doors and issued a “stay of execution” on the judgment, effectively nullifying it. Kanu criticizes this move, pointing out that courts typically do not grant relief to parties who have disobeyed prior orders.

Supreme Court Intervention

In December 2023, the Supreme Court sent Kanu’s case back to the Federal High Court for trial. In addition to this, the apex court ruled that Kanu’s bail should not have been revoked and criticized the trial judge for exhibiting bias. Despite these pronouncements, the Federal High Court failed to restore Kanu’s bail upon receiving the case, continuing what he describes as a deliberate effort to keep him detained in violation of Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution.

Request for Recusal and Subsequent Manipulation

Frustrated with the lack of fairness, Kanu requested the recusal of the presiding judge, citing her previous decisions against him, including sending him to secret police detention without a fair hearing and refusing to transfer him to prison for better trial preparation. The judge consented to the recusal, issuing an order that remains valid to this day.

However, instead of assigning the case to another judge, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court reassigned it to the same judge who had already recused herself. Kanu accuses the judiciary of conspiring with the federal government to ensure his prolonged detention.

Conclusion:
A Call for Justice
Kanu concludes by asserting that his case is deliberately shielded from judges and justices committed to delivering impartial justice, even if it means holding the government accountable. While acknowledging the presence of decent judges in Nigeria, he insists that he will not submit to any trial conducted by a judge or court lacking proper jurisdiction. He declares that he is prepared to remain in detention indefinitely until his case is heard by a fair and impartial court.