Nnamdi Kanu is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a separatist group that is seeking to establish an independent state of Biafra in Nigeria. The proposed Biafran Republic would include people of Igbo-speaking origin from Nigeria’s southeast and some parts of the south-south states. Kanu has been arrested and detained multiple times on charges of terrorism and treasonable offenses for his role in leading the separatist campaign.
The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, has recently commented on a request made by Anambra State Governor Charles Soludo to stand as surety for Nnamdi Kanu. Governor Soludo has called for Kanu’s release and has offered to stand as surety for him if the Nigerian government is unable to release him unconditionally. However, the AGF has stated that he has not received any formal request on this matter and that any such request should be made through the judicial process.
Kanu’s trial on terrorism and treasonable charges was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on October 2021, stating that his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria from Kenya last June was a flagrant violation of Nigeria’s extradition treaty and also a breach of his fundamental human rights. The government’s action, the court said, invalidated the trial. Despite the court’s order for his release, Kanu remains in detention while the federal government pursues its appeal at the Supreme Court in an effort to have the charges against him restored.
Read also: Access Bank has announced that it is dedicated to expanding its operations in the Kenyan market.
Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was first arrested by Nigeria’s spy agency in 2015 in Lagos, South-west Nigeria. After his arrest, he was charged with terrorism and treasonable offenses for his role in leading the separatist campaign for an independent state of Biafra.
In October 2021, the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed Mr Kanu’s trial on these charges. The appellate court held that Mr Kanu’s extraordinary rendition to Nigeria from Kenya last June was a flagrant violation of Nigeria’s extradition treaty and also a breach of his fundamental human rights. The court deemed that the Nigerian government’s actions were in violation of these international and domestic laws, invalidating the trial.
The Court of Appeal also ordered for his release from the custody of the Nigerian secret police, State Security Service (SSS) but Mr Kanu remains in detention while the federal government is pursuing an appeal at the Supreme Court in an effort to have the charges against him restored. The dismissal of the trial and the calls for his release by the court and other sectors of the society highlights the serious human rights violations and illegal actions committed by the Nigerian government in their handling of the case of Mr. Kanu.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja ordered for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), from the custody of the Nigerian secret police, State Security Service (SSS) in October 2021. However, despite this court order, Mr Kanu remains in detention. The Nigerian federal government is currently pursuing an appeal at the Supreme Court in an effort to have the charges against him restored. This means that despite the court’s order for his release, Mr Kanu remains in custody and his release is uncertain.
There have been calls from different sectors of the society, including human rights organizations, for the release of Mr Kanu. Governor Charles Soludo of Anambra State joined the list of those calling for Mr Kanu’s release during the presidential campaign flag-off of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in Awka, Anambra State on 15 January. Governor Soludo stated that if the Nigerian government is unable to release Mr Kanu unconditionally, he should be released to him, offering to stand as surety for him.
It is worth noting that the prolonged detention of Mr Kanu despite court orders and calls for his release, raises questions about the Nigerian government’s compliance with the rule of law and respect for human rights. The fact that the federal government is still pursuing an appeal to restore charges that have been dismissed by the court, further adds to concerns about the legitimacy of the legal process in this case.
In an exclusive interview with PREMIUM TIMES, the Attorney-General of Nigeria, Abubakar Malami, stated that he had not received a request from Anambra State Governor Charles Soludo regarding standing as surety for Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Governor Soludo had previously stated that if the Nigerian government is unable to release Mr Kanu unconditionally, he should be released to him and that he would stand as surety for him.
However, the Attorney-General stated that he had not received any formal request on this matter and that any such request should be made through the judicial process. Mr Malami, who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), explained that when a matter is pending before the court, the appropriate channel through which any request or concession can be presented for consideration is through the judicial process. This statement highlights the importance of legal procedures and the rule of law in the handling of this case.
The Attorney-General of Nigeria, Abubakar Malami, added that the renewed calls for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), have not been formally presented for his consideration. This means that the federal government has not officially taken into account the recent calls for Kanu’s release.
The Backstory.
Kanu’s backstory is rooted in his arrest and trial on terrorism charges in 2017. He was granted bail by Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja. However, the Nigerian Army invaded the IPOB leader’s Afara-Ukwu home near Umuahia, Abia State in September 2017, during which 18 civilians were killed, according to Mr Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome.
Due to this invasion, Kanu fled the country, prompting the trial judge, Mrs Nyako, to issue a warrant of arrest for the IPOB leader. One of Mr Kanu’s lawyers, Alloy Ejimakor, described the IPOB leader’s escape during the invasion as the “rule of self-preservation.” However, Mrs Nyako revoked Mr Kanu’s bail for abandoning his trial, and ordered his trial to be separated from the rest of the co-defendants.
Since 2017, the trial of the rest of the defendants has made some progress, but Mr Kanu’s trial has been stalled. This highlights the serious human rights violations and illegal actions committed by the Nigerian government in their handling of the case of Mr. Kanu and the lack of due process in the legal proceedings.
After nearly four years abroad, on 29 June 2021, the Attorney-General of Nigeria, Abubakar Malami, announced the arrest and repatriation of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), from Kenya to Nigeria. He was in the company with the Inspector-General of Police, Usman Baba and officials from the State Security Service (SSS). After his repatriation, Kanu was re-arraigned before Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja on 15-count terrorism and treasonable felony charges. However, in April 2021, the judge struck out eight of the charges after the IPOB leader challenged their validity.
The separatist leader then went on to the Court of Appeal to seek to quash the remaining seven counts. In a unanimous judgement last October, the Court of Appeal panel held that the Nigerian government breached local and international laws in the forcible rendition of Mr Kanu to Nigeria. The court stated that the illegal repatriation of Mr Kanu to Nigeria renders the terrorism charges against him incompetent and unlawful.
Mr Kanu is currently being held by the SSS in its facility in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has yet to fix a date for the hearing of the federal government’s appeal challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision ordering the IPOB leader’s release. The prolonged detention of Mr Kanu and the federal government’s efforts to have the charges against him restored despite the court’s dismissal of the case, raises serious concerns about the government’s compliance with the rule of law and respect for human rights.
