Page Nav


hide author name





Classic Header


Header Ad

Breaking News


Responsived Ad

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: How Supreme Court’s Travesty Tends To Endorse International Crime

 Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: How Supreme Court’s Travesty Tends To Endorse International Crime Abduction is defined by Oxford dictionary as the taking...

 Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: How Supreme Court’s Travesty Tends To Endorse International Crime

Abduction is defined by Oxford dictionary as the taking of a person by means of persuasion, fraud, or force. Whereas kidnapping is the act of carrying a person away, without his consent; by means of force, threats, or fraud. Extraordinary rendition, on the other hand, is defined as the practice of sending foreign suspects to be questioned in another country where the laws about the treatment of prisoners are less strict. These are serious crimes that are punishable by local and international laws. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People Of Biafra(IPOB) is a victim of these crimes while the perpetrator is Nigeria government.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria presided over the very case between Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Federal government of Nigeria on 15 December 2023. Through this case, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to redeem whatever is left of her battered image and credibility, but squandered it and missed a historic moment to be kindly judged by posterity. The unprecedented verdict paid for by Nigeria government is nothing but a travesty and miscarriage of justice. A judicial abracadabra and rascality; the type that is capable of destroying civilization.

It is important to note how the supreme Court acknowledged that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was on bail before 14 September 2017. On that day, the Nigeria government, through the army, invaded his compound and tried to have him killed. He escaped by the whiskers, and about thirty(30) innocent people were murdered. The Supreme Court also described this invasion as illegal and the killing of unarmed civilians as unwarranted. Fast-forward to 19 June 2021. This was the day Mazi Nnamdi Kanu got abducted in Kenya, subjected to inhuman torture and later extraordinarily renditioned to Nigeria. The Supreme Court described the process through which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was brought to Nigeria as lacking due process. However, the same Supreme Court sets aside the judgement of the Appellate Court for discharging and acquitting Mazi Nnamdi Kanu based on these heinous crimes from Nigeria government.

The Appeal Court judgement was anchored on international laws regarding treatment of fugitives. Extradition process is the legal framework guiding the treatment of fugitives. In Nigeria, Extradition is governed by the Extradition Act of 1966. This Act empowers the Nigeria State to enter into extradition treaties with other states. What is harrowing about the Supreme Court's judgement is the mixed grill of admitting Nigeria government’s crimes, recognizing the bail granted by High Court; blaming the Appeal Court for wrongfully revoking his bail and dismissing his acquittal and discharge, and still having the audacity to reinstate his 7 count terrorism charge with the High Court, without restoring his bail.

This highly suspicious and kangaroo judgement from a compromised judiciary is the reason a critical thinker is left with nothing than pertinent burning questions such as:

1. If Nigeria is honest about going back to Federal High Court, why then should it be based on the extraordinary rendition instead of granting freedom, since the High Court already granted bail?

2. Since Nigeria is a member of United Nations and African Union, and both organizations recognizes self determination, why is Nigeria government criminalizing self- determination instead of a roundtable talk with IPOB leadership?

3. Nigeria government knows that extraordinary rendition is an international crime and yet committed it. If the victim is punished and the offender (Nigeria government) walks with impunity, do you think the High Court will deliver Justice in terrorism case?

4. What are the assurances that Nigeria government, in collaboration with UK government, is not planning something more sinister for the diaspora principal officers? Since intelligence gathering from IPOB supports this suspicion, this black market judgement justifies such accusation

5. Do you think, given the death of the judiciary in Nigeria, that the Biafran people will not lose faith in IPOB leadership and accuse them of sellout, should they allow this travesty and miscarriage of justice?

The bottom line is, exploring further legal opportunities is a no-brainer. It is akin to embracing a suicide bomber. At this point, IPOB leadership has nothing against them. The joke is on Nigeria government, her foreign collaborators, and a few greedy local politicians. The Nigeria government is responsible for whatever public outrage and uproar that will follow this denial of justice. 

Written by Mazi Daniel Chibueze

Edited by Ogah C S Maduabuchi 

For Family Writers Press International

No comments

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Responsived Ad