Nnamdi Kanu’s trial a national disgrace — Lawyer

A human rights lawyer and Director of Legal Affairs, Research and Global Communications of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, has taken a swipe at the Nigerian government over the continued trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

The lawyer described the landmark judgment by the Kenya High Court as a direct judicial indictment of the Nigerian government under the watch of former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami.

Onyedikachi accused Malami of overseeing what he described as an international criminal operation that has now exposed Nigeria to multiple counts of treaty violations, state-sponsored terrorism, and grave human rights abuses.

He stated this in a statement he signed and made available to journalists on Monday in Abuja.
He called on the Tinubu-led government to end the ongoing sham trials and take steps to comply with the judgments of the Federal High Court, Umuahia Division, and the High Court of Kenya.

The statement read, “We wish to commend the High Court of Kenya for its landmark ruling that declared the abduction, detention, and forcible transfer of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria as a flagrant violation of his fundamental rights, including the right to liberty, fair hearing, and due process of law, as guaranteed under both the Kenyan and Nigerian constitutions, as well as international legal instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory.

This ruling is not merely a vindication of Mazi Kanu’s long-standing position. It is a direct judicial indictment of the lawlessness perpetuated by the Nigerian government under the watch of former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami, who supervised this international criminal operation that now exposes Nigeria to multiple counts of treaty violations, state-sponsored terrorism, and grave human rights abuses.

“Now that a competent court in Kenya—the territory from which Mazi Kanu was abducted—has issued a reasoned, courageous, and unambiguous judgment, the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja can no longer pretend that the question of illegal rendition is irrelevant.
“In fact, by virtue of the Nigerian Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, His Lordship Justice James Omotosho is under a legal obligation to inquire into the jurisdictional propriety of the trial, including whether the foundation of this entire case is tainted by illegality.

Indeed, Section 2(3)(f)(ii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 provides verbatim as follows:
‘An act which deliberately—(f) violates the provisions of any international treaty or resolution to which Nigeria is a party, subject to the provisions of section 12(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999—(ii) by unlawfully seizing, kidnapping or abducting any person… shall be regarded as an act of terrorism under this Act.’

“This provision is clear, unambiguous, and devastating in its implication: any Nigerian official—civilian or military—involved in the abduction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya has, by operation of Nigerian law, committed an act of terrorism.
“Furthermore, Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is binding on Nigeria and domesticated as part of Nigerian law, provides:
‘A non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.’
“No such decision was ever made by any court in Kenya. No extradition hearing was ever conducted. Mazi Kanu was blindfolded, tortured, and bundled onto a private jet in Nairobi, in a criminal enterprise more akin to Cold War-era renditions than anything permitted under contemporary African or international law.

“This is a matter that goes beyond mere legal technicality. The abduction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a constitutional desecration, a betrayal of international obligations, and—now under the Terrorism Act 2022—an indictable offense.”
He urged Justice James Omotosho to act in accordance with his oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by inviting both the prosecution and the defence to address the court on the implications of the Kenyan judgment and the applicability of Section 2(3)(f)(ii) of the Terrorism Act.

“Let it be clearly stated to Nigerians, and to the international community, that any court in Nigeria proceeding to try Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in defiance of the due process clause of extradition law, and in willful disregard of treaty obligations, is not only violating the Constitution—it is aiding and abetting terrorism.

“Those hoping to circumvent Nigeria’s own laws should note carefully: the Terrorism Act 2022 defines the trial of a person illegally abducted in breach of an international treaty as terrorism itself. In other words, every sitting of the court that proceeds without first curing the foundational illegality of this rendition is itself an unlawful act.

“This is the shame and disgrace that Abubakar Malami—and those who continue to defend his illegalities—have brought upon the Nigerian state. A trial built on illegality is itself illegal. A court that closes its eyes to jurisdictional abuse loses moral and legal legitimacy,” he added.