The legal team representing Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has accused the Nigerian government and judiciary of forming an “unholy alliance” in his trial. Speaking at a press conference in Abuja on Thursday, the team, led by Special Counsel Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, criticized the alleged undue influence, technicalities, and biased court orders that have characterized Kanu’s terrorism and treasonable felony case.

According to the team, the prosecution heavily relies on procedural maneuvers and undue interference with court officials to secure favorable outcomes. They further alleged that decisions during Kanu’s “mock trial” before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal never addressed the substantive issues in the case.

Allegations of Judicial Complicity

The team claimed, “There is an unholy alliance between the prosecution and the judiciary, where the Court of Appeal has refused to hear appeals, citing the need for time to study them. Yet, during this period, the prosecution is tipped off by ‘appropriate quarters’ to file motions challenging the appeals. Despite robust counterarguments, these motions are often granted.”

They also criticized a system where judges are unwilling to reverse their own rulings, leaving Kanu’s legal team unable to challenge procedural irregularities effectively. The team maintained that this pattern undermines justice and constitutes persecution rather than a fair trial.

Claims of Persecution Over Prosecution

Kanu’s lawyers stated that their client is undergoing “state-sanctioned extrajudicial detention” rather than lawful prosecution. They cited repeated adjournments, refusal to assign the case to another judge, and restrictions on Kanu’s access to legal counsel as evidence of a deliberate strategy to frustrate his defense.

“This is not prosecution but persecution,” the legal team declared. “From the unending delays to the insistence on Justice Binta Nyako presiding over the case, it is clear that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is being subjected to oppression by the Federal Government.”

Reference to Legal Precedents

The legal team referenced the Supreme Court case Abacha vs. State (2002) LPELR-16(SC), which emphasized that courts must ensure fairness in trials to avoid transforming prosecution into persecution. They warned against indicting individuals in cases where it is evident they should not face trial, as this undermines the justice system.

Call for a Fair Trial

The team concluded by demanding that Kanu’s trial be reassigned to a different judge of the Federal High Court to ensure impartiality. They expressed hope for a legal process free from undue influence, stating, “We expect that normal prosecution commences before another judge who will ensure fairness in the hearing of the charges.”

For more updates, join our WhatsApp channel: Chronicles Reporters WhatsApp Channel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *