IPOB Accuses Courts of Aiding Nnamdi Kanu’s Detention

IPOB has accused courts of aiding Nnamdi Kanu’s detention.

 

NewsOnline Nigeria reports that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has accused the Nigerian courts of aiding in the continued detention of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu.

 

This Nigeria news platform understands that the group’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, alleged in a statement released to newsmen on Friday that this situation has kept Kanu in detention for the past two years.

 

READ ALSO: EFCC Probes Eight Suspected Oil Thieves In Rivers State

To support his claims, Powerful stated, “This statement is intended to address how the courts have unfairly assisted the federal government in illegally detaining Mazi Nnamdi Kanu for the past two and a half years.”

 

Elaborating further, Powerful pointed out, “Firstly, following the infamous extraordinary rendition that brought him to Nigeria, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was secretly arraigned on 29th June 2021 without the benefit of his counsel of record before the Federal High Court, Abuja. The court wrongfully ordered his detention with the DSS instead of a prison facility, violating the provisions of the Nigeria Prisons Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act regarding awaiting trial defendants.”

He added, “The secrecy of this arraignment, without notice to a counsel well-known to the court, violated Kanu’s constitutional right to counsel of his choice and the right to have his trial in public. Under the pertinent provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act, Kanu’s initial detention should have terminated after 90 days or been subject to renewal after 90 days pursuant to a written application by the prosecution. This was not done, rendering the entire period of his detention after the initial 90 days illegal.”

Powerful further alleged, “The incessant post-rendition amendments of charges and consequential adjournments allowed by the Federal High Court to the Nigerian government ensured that Kanu’s case stayed in the Federal High Court for too long before ultimately landing at the Court of Appeal.”

He also claimed, “Recall that Kanu was renditioned for 4 count charges only, none of them bordering on terrorism, but the Federal High Court ignored all the laws on point, allowing the government to abandon all but one of the 4 pre-rendition charges and introduce 15 new counts of terrorism charges.”

 

Regarding the delays at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, Powerful expressed concern about the prolonged time it took for the judicial process to unfold, suggesting that it contributed to Kanu’s prolonged detention without trial.

In conclusion, Powerful stated, “Truth be told, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case is a simple case of political detention gone haywire, and it has nothing to do with any clear violation of the law on his part.” He also assured that these circumstances would not lead Kanu to renounce his membership of the pro-Biafra group.