The Travesty of Justice: Unpacking Nnamdi Kanu Case - a look at his Open Letter to the Public

Nnamdi Kanu's fight for the restoration of Biafra has led to significant legal battles with the Nigerian government. Kanu's supporters and admirers see him as a hero fighting for the rights of a marginalised people, while the Nigerian government views him as a threat to national unity.

Highlights of the Nnamdi Kanu Saga

The IPOB Conundrum: Is IPOB an illegal group or not? The courts seem divided.
Extraordinary Rendition: Was Kanu's kidnapping and forcible return from Kenya lawful? The courts have weighed in.
Judicial Whack-a-Mole: Kanu's legal team cries foul, alleging a stacked deck of biased judges, resulting in a cycle of legal challenges with no determinable end.
International Echoes: The UK government is under pressure due to Kanu's dual citizenship.
A Diplomatic Flashback: Echoes of the Umaru Dikko affair and its impact on UK-Nigerian relations.

In this blog post, we'll delve into the complexities of Mr Nnamdi Kanu's ongoing legal battles, the responses from the UK government, echoes of a past diplomatic incident and Mr Kanu's Open Letter to the public.

Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB: A History of Legal Battles

The Nigerian government has charged Kanu with various offenses, including terrorism and treason. His legal team, however, argues that the charges are politically motivated. They also argue that his international kidnapping and extraordinary rendition from Kenya was illegal. And it therefore invalidates all subsequent legal proceedings against him.

Note that prior to this, Kanu had been granted bail in a related case in Nigeria. The Nigerian army allegedly encircled and invaded his home with an armoured vehicle in September 2017, following the start of the second phase of Operation Python Dance 2. It was claimed that 15 to 30 people and Kanu's dog were killed.

In a recent open letter, Kanu accused the Nigerian government of "serial executive and judicial fraud." He specifically pointed to a 2017 judgment where the Federal High Court ruled that "IPOB is not an unlawful group." Kanu alleges that the government, instead of appealing this decision, went behind closed doors to have IPOB labelled as a terrorist group.

The UK Government's Stance: A Balancing Act

As a British citizen, Kanu is entitled to consular assistance from the UK government. However, the UK must also maintain diplomatic relations with Nigeria. This has led to a cautious approach, with the UK government emphasising the importance of due process and a fair trial for Kanu.

Given Case Law on Consular Assistance, Judicial Review of Government Decisions and related court judgements particularly the case of R (Okwu-Kanu) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, it seems UK courts have placed limits on the degree to which the UK government is obligated to act. They've allowed the government to maintain a "provisional view" on whether extraordinary rendition occurred, and have been reluctant to mandate specific actions.

Echoes of the Past: The Umaru Dikko Affair

It is worth noting that kidnapping is a significant and growing problem within Nigeria. It affects both Nigerian citizens and foreign nationals. Besides local pressures, kidnapping and extradition from abroad is a major concern and has brought Nigeria's historical antecedents into sharp focus.

Nnamdi Kanu's case bears some similarities to the 1984 Umaru Dikko affair, where the Nigerian government attempted to kidnap a former minister living in exile in the UK. The incident led to a breakdown in diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Brief Summary of the Umaru Dikko Case (1984)

Umaru Dikko, a former Nigerian government minister, was living in exile in London.
In 1984, individuals believed to be acting on behalf of the Nigerian government attempted to kidnap him.
He was found drugged inside a crate at Stansted Airport, ready to be shipped back to Nigeria.
The incident caused a major diplomatic row between the UK and Nigeria including expulsions, retaliations, breakdown of relations and the UK refused extradition request by Nigeria.
Several individuals were convicted of attempted kidnapping and administering stupefying drugs. These included individuals believed to be connected to Israeli intelligence:

Shapiro:
- Nationality: Israeli
- Conviction: Kidnapping and administering stupefying drugs.
- Sentence: 10 years imprisonment.
- Served: Released after serving between six and eight and a half years.
Barak:
- Nationality: Israeli
- Conviction: Kidnapping and administering stupefying drugs.
- Sentence: 14 years imprisonment.
- Served: Released after serving between six and eight and a half years.
Abitbol:
- Nationality: Israeli
- Conviction: Kidnapping and administering stupefying drugs.
- Sentence: 10 years imprisonment.
- Served: Released after serving between six and eight and a half years.
Yusufu:
- Nationality: Nigerian
- Conviction: Kidnapping and administering stupefying drugs.
- Sentence: 12 years imprisonment.
- Served: Released after serving between six and eight and a half years.

The Dikko affair serves as a reminder of the complexities of international law, diplomatic relations and how these can impact individual cases.

A Case That Demands Attention

The case of Nnamdi Kanu, a British political activist and leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is one that has captured international attention. It is a story filled with legal twists, several levels of political intrigues, and serious allegations of injustice.

Why should you, perhaps someone that is far removed from the intricacies of Nigerian politics, care?

Well, this case isn't just about one man. It touches upon fundamental principles of the rule of law, right to self determination and the integrity of judicial systems. It raises questions that should concern anyone who believes in justice and equity. Or perhaps anyone interested in cases where law and politics converge against individual and communal rights to freedom of speech, association and self determination; all enshrouded in socio-political activism.

Some Key Considerations

Is Nigeria's judiciary truly impartial, or is it susceptible to political influence?
Has Mr Nnamdi Kanu, a British citizen, been denied his fundamental human rights and legal entitlements?
What are the implications of this case for the ongoing Biafran independence movement, a movement that elicits strong feelings?
Why does the Nigerian government appear to be disregarding court orders, and what does this say about their commitment to the legal framework?
Ultimately, what are the broader implications for the stability and democratic health of Nigeria, a key player in African affairs?
How does this case prove or disprove allegations of discrimination against the Igbo people and the Biafran agitation. The way the Nigerian government has handled Kanu's case is seen by many as evidence of the systemic discrimination that the Igbo people face in Nigeria. The perception of unequal treatment in view of Oloye Sunday Adeyemo AKA Sunday Igboho of the Oduduwa secessionist movement and Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, AKA Shi’ites, both of whom have been released, conjure strong ramifications as follows:

Reinforcement of Historical Grievances particularly as regards the Biafra - Nigeria war.
Disregard for Igbo rights to express their political beliefs and seek self determination.
Legitimisation of the Biafran agitation.

These are weighty questions, and they deserve careful consideration. To understand the complexities of the situation, it is essential to hear directly from the central figure himself.

Nnamdi Kanu's Open Letter to the General Public

Nnamdi Kanu has taken the unusual step of publishing an “Open Letter to the General Public.” This letter, dated 14th February 2025 and signed by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, offers a compelling, if controversial, account of the legal battles he has faced since his extraordinary rendition in 2021. It is a direct and forceful challenge to the narrative presented by the Nigerian government. It is advisable to examine the full letter and I urge you to do so, to make up your own mind.

Below is a summarisation of the key points from Kanu's letter, including some analysis and a look at the most recent developments in this ongoing saga.

Nnamdi Kanu's Letter: A Summary

Kanu's letter is a detailed and impassioned account of his legal grievances. He presents a timeline of key events and court decisions, arguing that he has been the victim of consistent judicial and executive overreach. Here are the main points he raises:

The Status of IPOB:

Kanu begins by referencing a judgment from the Federal High Court in Abuja on 1st March 2017, which ruled that "IPOB is not an unlawful group". He emphasises the significance of this ruling, obtained through a criminal process demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt. He then contrasts this with the later proscription of IPOB as a terrorist group. Kanu argues that this proscription was achieved improperly, through an ex parte proceeding, conducted without notice to him or IPOB, instigated by the former Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, using a letter signed by the late Abba Kyari. Kanu portrays this as evidence of collusion between the government and the judiciary, designed to deny him his rights and endanger IPOB members.

The Rendition Ruling:

Kanu highlights the Federal High Court's decision of 26th October 2022, which declared his extraordinary rendition and subsequent detention as unconstitutional.

The court stated that his arrest in Kenya, his detention in Abuja, the physical and mental trauma, and the inhuman treatment amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to dignity and a threat to his life, as enshrined in Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.

The court ordered the government to apologise and pay compensation.

Kanu suggests that in a law abiding society, this judgment should have led to his release and encouraged dialogue regarding self determination.

The Court of Appeal's Stance:

Kanu draws attention to the Court of Appeal's judgment of 13th October 2022, where the court condemned "executive lawlessness".

The Court of Appeal recognised the importance of balancing law and order with the protection of individuals from oppressive government actions.

The court ruled that his forcible abduction and extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria on 27th June 2021, violated international and state laws, and therefore, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction to try him.

Kanu criticises the Federal Government for refusing to release him and for allegedly manipulating the Court of Appeal to issue a "stay of execution" on this judgment.

He questions the legality of staying a judgment that the government had already disobeyed, referencing Supreme Court precedents that suggest a party disobeying a court order should not be granted judicial relief.

The Supreme Court's Intervention:

Kanu discusses the Supreme Court's decision of 15th December 2023, which sent his case back to the Federal High Court for trial.

He notes that the Supreme Court also ruled that his bail should not have been revoked and stated that the judge demonstrated unacceptable bias in revoking it.

Kanu argues that upon receiving the case, the High Court should have restored his bail, in line with the Supreme Court's pronouncement, but failed to do so.

He reiterates his claim that the court is colluding with the government to continue his detention, violating Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution.

The Recusal Request:

Kanu explains that on 24th September 2024, he requested the recusal of the judge in his case, citing her previous actions, including ordering his secret police detention without a fair hearing, refusing his transfer to a prison, and denying him bail.

The judge consented to the recusal, and an order was made to that effect.

Kanu states that this order was not appealed and remains valid. He alleged that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court colluded with the government to improperly reassign his case to the recused judge.

Unpacking Kanu's Claims

Kanu's letter is a powerful, if one sided, account. He makes some serious accusations, and it is important to consider them carefully. He essentially argues that there is a concerted effort to undermine his legal rights. He suggests that the Nigerian authorities are manipulating the legal system to achieve a predetermined outcome.

His specific claims raise several key concerns:

Contempt for the Judiciary: The government is portrayed as showing a blatant disregard for court decisions, selectively obeying those that suit its agenda and ignoring those that don't. This undermines the very principle of the rule of law.
Questions of Impartiality: Kanu's accusations of judicial bias are deeply troubling. He suggests that judges are not acting independently, but rather under the influence of the executive branch of the Federal Government. This strikes at the heart of judicial integrity.
Executive Overreach: Kanu claims that the executive branch is exceeding its authority and interfering in the judicial process. This raises concerns about the separation of powers, a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Denial of Justice: Ultimately, Kanu argues that he is being denied his right to a fair trial. He suggests that the legal system is being used as a tool to silence dissent and suppress the Biafran movement, rather than to deliver justice.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The Nnamdi Kanu case is complex, with legal, political, and diplomatic implications. As it continues to unfold, it will be interesting to see how the Nigerian and UK governments navigate this challenging situation.

The latest development in this long running legal drama is the appointment of a new judge to preside over Nnamdi Kanu's case. Justice John Tsoho, the Chief Judge (CJ) of the Federal High Court (FHC), has taken over the reins, following Mr Kanu's successful insistence that the previous judge, Justice Binta Nyako, must recuse herself.

This is a significant moment. Justice Tsoho's position as Chief Judge lends considerable weight to his involvement. It offers a glimmer of hope that the case might now proceed with a renewed commitment to impartiality.

However, it is important to remain cautiously optimistic. The appointment of a new judge, however senior, does not automatically guarantee a just outcome. The issues raised by Kanu in his letter viz the allegations of executive interference, judicial bias, and disregard for due process, remain pertinent.

The way forward is uncertain, but the focus must now be on ensuring that the legal process is followed meticulously and transparently. Justice Tsoho has a crucial opportunity to demonstrate the independence and integrity of the Nigerian judiciary. The world is watching, and the outcome of this case will have profound implications for the future of Nigeria and its commitment to the rule of law.

Food for Thought

It is pertinent to note that Nnamdi Kanu previously advocated for a united Nigeria. His shift towards seeking Biafra restoration and independence followed growing frustration and disillusionment with the perceived inability to achieve meaningful progress and transform Nigeria into a world class, civilised, and developed nation. He attributes this failure to a dysfunctional system, deliberately designed and mismanaged to perpetuate the oppression and suppression of Nigeria's indigenous peoples.

This conviction is central to why he designated Nigeria a "zoological republic" or simply "The Zoo," rather than the more common "banana republic." This label powerfully conveys his perception of Nigeria as a dysfunctional state.

Here's a breakdown of the key reasons he variously adduced as underpinning his choice of terminology:

Emphasis on Anarchy and Chaos: The term "zoological republic" strongly evokes chaos, irrationality, and a breakdown of civility, law and order. In its negative connotation, "The Zoo" represents a place dominated by base instincts and primordial behaviours, rather than logic, civilised discourse, and the rule of law. This aligns with Kanu's rhetoric, which often portrays Nigeria as a place where high reasoning is absent and civilised norms are disregarded.
Dehumanisation: The term "zoological" inherently dehumanises. It suggests that the people and the system are driven by animalistic urges, rather than the higher values of human reasoning, empathy, fairness, equity, and justice. This reflects Kanu's Biafran narrative, which focuses on the marginalisation and the alleged treatment of the Igbo people as less deserving and desirable by the Nigerian state.
Rejection of Neo-colonialism: Kanu places the responsibility for Nigeria's economic exploitation and woes squarely within Nigeria. The term "zoological republic" suggests that the problems are internal, stemming from the country's inability to install quality leadership and govern itself in a civilised manner, rather than external manipulation.
Cultural and Historical Resonance: Kanu strongly suggests that a fundamental lack of trust and cohesion among Nigeria's various tribes and regions betrays the political mantra - non-negotiable one Nigeria unity. He argues that internal unity has been consistently undermined by divergent views of life, culture and religion; and that there has never been evidence of a genuine agreement by these diverse peoples to coexist under a single entity. He believes that this flawed foundation has fostered debilitating leadership over the years and will continue to generate internal failures and a dehumanising environment that will forever derail any form of progress under the current structure.

Kanu says he cannot continue to allow himself and his people to be held back. He suggests that the logical solution is to breakup the country and allow the various tribes to go their separate ways and decide for themselves through a plebiscite, how they wish to be governed and relate with each other in the future.

Like everyone else, Kanu is certainly entitled to his views. As this legal drama unfolds, the question remains: will the Nigerian state and its judicial system, through their actions, ultimately validate Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's critique or will they disprove him?

The debate surrounding Kanu's choice of the term "zoological republic" is itself a reflection of the deep divisions within Nigeria. While some vehemently object to it, others fully endorse it. Still others find "zoological republic" too mild a description, arguing that "jungle" more accurately captures the pervasive corruption, judicial injustice, kidnapping, chaos, economic woes, and overall hardship and dysfunctional system they face daily in Nigeria.

What are your thoughts?

Share your opinion in the comment section and lets enjoy a healthy, civilised and rational debate.

Search This Blog

Nnamdi Kanu's Open Letter: A Cry Against "Judicial Fraud" in Nigeria - History & Way Forward