Rising from today’s visitation with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, he instructed his legal team to publicly clarify the following critical points which have been the subject of persistent misinformation:

 

1. That the so-called treason or treasonable felony charges were all struck out on 14th October 2021 at the behest of the Federal Government because of the absence of any evidence to prove them. To be sure, these charges were struck out after Mazi Nnamdi had endured a gruelling eighteen months detention and six years of trial on account of these charges. Thus, the sudden shift from treason to terrorism after the extraordinary rendition reflects a dubious move by the Federal Government to shift the goal post, which directly led to the current lengthy detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. To be clear, treason (under Section 41 of the Criminal Code) requires proving intent to overthrow the State, a very high bar tied to Mazi Kanu’s pre-2017 self-determination activities. After his 2021 abduction, the government reframed the case around terrorism, leveraging on IPOB’s 2017 proscription by Abubakar Malami & late Justice Kafarati to target post-2017 Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s broadcasts and leadership as a way to cripple a legitimate agitation for self-determination – a protected right under Article 20 of the African Charter, enacted by the National Assembly in 1983.

 

2. For avoidance of doubt, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was not “arrested” in Kenya but was instead abducted in what the Supreme Court (per Justice Emmanuel Agim) called a “criminal abduction” and characterized as “executive lawlessness”, a damning condemnation of the actions of the Nigerian government by the highest court in Nigeria. It is no different from the brazen and criminal manner kidnappers abduct their victims and demand ransom. The Supreme Court also acknowledged the egregious violations of international law & norms (e.g., extradition treaties) and Nigerian law (e.g., fair hearing and due process), consistent with the UN Working Group opinion in July 2022 calling Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s detention arbitrary.

 

3, Above all, the Federal government sidestepped a binding 2016 Federal High Court ruling that held that IPOB is not an unlawful group and resorted to leveraging in a procedurally flawed 2017 proscription to levy an infamous rendition against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. To this day, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s prosecution is still hinged on this highly flawed 2017 proscription of IPOB. Sooner than later, the day shall come when all these anomalies will no longer stand the test of time.

 

Signed:

Aloy Ejimakor, Esq.

f/MNK Legal Team