SECRET EXPOSED? Nnamdi Kanu Raises Serious Alarm; SEE The Evil Plan He Claims Tinubu’s Government Has For Him
In a recent public statement, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has highlighted what he perceives as systemic judicial and executive misconduct since his controversial rendition in 2021. Kanu accuses the Nigerian government and judiciary of colluding to undermine his rights and those who identify with IPOB.
Kanu references a landmark ruling from March 1, 2017, when the Federal High Court in Abuja declared IPOB was not an unlawful group. This decision followed rigorous proceedings requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, instead of appealing through formal channels, the then- Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, covertly labeled IPOB a terrorist organization in ex parte proceedings conducted without notifying either Kanu or IPOB. This move, according to Kanu, marked the beginning of an alliance between the government and judiciary aimed at denying him justice.
On October 26, 2022, the Federal High Court ruled that Kanu’ s extraordinary rendition and detention were unconstitutional. The court criticized the manner of his arrest in Kenya, prolonged confinement in Abuja, and the psychological and physical abuse he endured, labeling these acts as violations of his fundamental human rights under Section 34(1)(a) of Nigeria’ s Constitution. The court also ordered the federal government to apologize and compensate him. Despite this clear directive, the government ignored the ruling and continued his detention.
The Court of Appeal further supported Kanu’ s case on October 13, 2022, emphasizing the need for accountability against ” executive lawlessness. ” It ruled that Kanu’ s forcible abduction violated international and domestic laws, stripping Nigerian courts of jurisdiction over charges against him. However, the federal government defied this ruling, collaborating with three justices of the Court of Appeal who issued a ” stay of execution, ” effectively nullifying the original decision.
By December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court remanded Kanu’ s case back to the Federal High Court for trial. It also ruled that his bail should not have been revoked due to unacceptable bias by the presiding judge. Despite this, the Federal High Court failed to reinstate his bail, contravening Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution.
On September 24, 2024, Kanu requested the recusal of the presiding judge due to perceived partiality. His request was granted, but the Chief Judge reassigned the case to the same judge previously recused. This action raises concerns about judicial independence and integrity.
Kanu concludes by affirming faith in impartial judges within Nigeria’ s judiciary but accuses specific actors of steering his case away from unbiased verdicts unfavorable to the government. He vows resistance against trials lacking constitutional validity. His ordeal highlights systemic issues in Nigeria’ s justice system and calls for urgent reform.
