Published by
12th of July 2021
Abstract
Nigeria lies on the infamous gibbet of insecurity, poverty, and unprecedented inflation. These are, however, not new terms in the Nigerian context; there has only been an increase in these maladies with no significant visible efforts on the side of the government. It is then surprising to find that instead of head-on attempts at quailing her economic and security challenges, this administration channels its energy at cracking down critics and silencing dissenting voices. One of these voices is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the
Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) – a separatist organization championing the restoration of the sovereign State of Biafra. No one would expect any government of the world to smile at people or actions who are perceived to be undermining her integrity, but it is also expected of any government to act within the ambits of the law. This places a question mark on the recent ‘arrest’ of Nnamdi Kanu. Whilst the details are still hazy, involved parties seem to have violated every international code of conduct just to arrest Kanu. This article captures the intricacies of this event, delving into the legal implication of Kanu’s abduction and how further damage can be forestalled.
Background
In the words of the former United Nations Deputy Secretary-General, Jan Eliasson (2015), “…there is no peace without development, there is no development without peace, and there is no lasting peace or sustainable development without respect of human rights and the rule of law…” This dictum finely aligns with the ubiquitous saying from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1963), that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” A shared insight from these thoughts is that our collective responsibility is to see to the utmost respect of human rights, the enforcement of the rule of law, and the pursuit of justice everywhere.
A state in which the principle of “all man for himself” holds sway in the minds of its inhabitants and inhibits their collective sense of justice is, without doubt, one in which the concept of human rights is a mere façade or even consensually nonexistent. Such a state can be likened to the Hobbesian “state of nature” in which human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651). When we relate this to the Nigerian society, the description ticks the boxes of the realities of many citizens. The nefarious activities of terrorists and bandits against citizens without any practical intervention of the government is already a handful. But this is even exacerbated by the unchecked brutal acts of the military and various law enforcement bodies against innocent citizens.
The noncommittal body language of the federal government in response to these maladies in a diverse country like Nigeria indeed gives room for suspicion. Apparently, this is what has culminated in the rising secessionist agitations in some quarters of the country. The near-deafening silence of the federal government to the increasing complaints of kidnapping, killings, plundering of farms, etc., carried out by the Fulani Herdsmen in South-Western Nigeria, for instance, resulted in the Oduduwa Nation agitations.
The national coordinator of Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, captured this public mistrust for the government, in his words thus: “there is no doubt that the Federal government has always and often sided with armed Fulani herdsmen, and this open fraternity can be decoded by the silence till now of the Federal government to the vicious attacks on Igangan town in Oyo state in which hundreds of people were massacred” (Daily Post, 2021). Moreover, this perception is even further deepened by the fact that the country’s president, Muhammadu Buhari, is a Fulani.
The government’s parochial and relatively insensitive stance to the mistrust of citizens and cries of insecurity across different country quarters is a cause for concern to every sensitive individual, especially if your family or tribal group is a potential victim. The preferential treatment perceived to be given to the Fulani herdsmen attackers and, perhaps, other Northern criminal elements to the detriment of those in the Southern geopolitical zones fuels this sense of insecurity. The Igbos, arguably, can best relate with this, given their acrid history along this line—the marginalization and injustices they have put up with from the ’60s.
The massive reprisal killings of Igbos in Northern Nigeria following the January 1966 coup and the second wave of this in September of the same year comes to mind. The notable fact here is that the federal government, manned by the then President, General Gowon, a Northerner, did very little to address these atrocities. The declaration of the independence of the east as the Republic of Biafra hence didn’t come as a big surprise. However, the resultant civil war and its aftermath have not ceased to arouse the suspicion of the Igbos and amplify their reasons for wanting an independent state of theirs. Hence the birth of Igbo separatist groups—Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and now The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
The Nigeria Federal Government v. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu
In an attempt to silence the Biafra agitations championed by IPOB, the Muhammadu Buhari-led federal government has recently “arrested” the group’s leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The Federal Government announced this arrest (or re-arrest) on the 29th of June, 2021. This would make his second arrest since his incipient arrest in October 2015. Apparently, one of the most substantial reasons for this recent re-arrest is that “he jumped the bail granted by the court to escape trial by running out of the country” (Daily Post, 2021). He had been released on bail in April 2017 with bail conditions requesting him “to bring a prominent Igbo leader, a wealthy resident of Abuja, and a senior Nigerian Jewish leader to provide 100 million naira each as surety to the court” (BBC News, May 2017).
A year after his alleged escape outside the country, video footage of Kanu emerged from Israel, where he was speaking to reporters. In the video, he explained to the reporters that he was forced out of Nigeria when the Nigerian army raided his home, killing twenty-eight IPOB members in their attempt to arrest him (Nairametrics, July 2021). True to his words, the Nigerian Army indeed carried out a raid, called Operation Python Dance, in his home in September 2017, shortly after his release. After that, IPOB was declared a terrorist organization by the Nigerian government.
The Federal Government, through the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, stated that Kanu would be charged with an “11-count charge of treason, treasonable felony, terrorism, and illegal possession of firearms, among others, jumped bail in 2017 and left the country” (Nairametrics, July 2021). The fact that there is no concrete incontrovertible proof the Federal Government has on Nnamdi Kanu is lucid enough. In other words, the chances that they would prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kanu is guilty of terrorism, treason, treasonable felony, or illegal possession of firearms, is not sure, if he is given a fair trial. His expression for an Independent Igbo Nation or his establishment of IPOB doesn’t constitute treason, treasonable felony, or an intention to commit treason as spelt out in the S.37, S.38, S.40, and S.41 of the Criminal Code Act. Besides, the universally accepted principle that all people have the right to self-determination would makes it challenging to hold this against him or anyone else.
The argument that Kanu “jumped bail” is also a very hypocritical one. The fact that every human being would typically be predisposed to flee if their life is threatened is one we can all relate with. What did we expect of a Nnamdi Kanu with British Citizenship and direct access to Israel when his home was suddenly violently raided by the Nigerian army? Other accusations that he incited violence through radio and online broadcasts (Vanguard, July 2021) are also without any incontrovertible basis. Nevertheless, the debate around the charges levied against him is a discussion for another day. We are faced with more perplexing conjectures surrounding his “arrest,” extradition (if there was any such process), and the legality of any of these.
The Legal Implications of Nnamdi Kanu’s Recent “Arrest”
Quite interestingly, the Federal Government has been reticent as to the details of Kanu’s “arrest.” Many Nigerians first learnt that he had been taken into custody on the 29th of June when a picture of the IPOB leader in handcuffs began circulating on the internet, at a time when there was yet no official statement from the Nigerian government. When the government eventually thought it right to come up with an announcement, they failed to douse the curiosity of many Nigerians, leaving us without any clue as to the country from which he was taken into custody, how he was arrested, and the processes of his arrest and extradition, and so on. The announcement came through the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the federation, Abubakar Malami. Malami stated:
The self-acclaimed leader of the proscribed secessionist Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Kanu, has been intercepted through the collaborative efforts of Nigerian Intelligence and Security Services. He has been brought back to Nigeria, in order to continue facing trial after disappearing, while on bail regarding an 11-count charge against him (Nairametrics, July 2021)
Also, when asked about the details of the arrest, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the Minister for information and culture, towed the same approach by simply evading the nitty-gritty: “What we can tell you is that the re-arrest was made possible by the diligent efforts of our security and intelligence agencies in collaboration with countries with which we have obligations. We continue to respect and honour the obligations” (The Nation, July 2021).
There has been widespread rumour as to the same country from which Kanu was taken into custody. Different political observers and commentators have come up with various theories and positions as regards this. However, a neutral observation is that he was taken from either of UK, Czech Republic, Brazil, Ethiopia, or Kenya. But if indeed he was taken from either of these countries, can we assume he was taken through the proper extradition process? We are without any clue relating to this. It’s safe to first examine the extradition laws and processes of these countries before proceeding.
UK Extradition Processes to Nigeria
The UK extradition processes to Nigeria (and other territories in the same category with Nigeria), according to Gov.UK (2021), is as follows:
Requests from these territories need decisions by both the Secretary of State and the courts.
The extradition process to these territories follows these steps:
- Extradition request is made to the Secretary of StateSecretary of State decides whether to certify the request
- Judge decides whether to issue a warrant for arrest
- The person wanted is arrested and brought before the court
- Preliminary hearing
- Extradition hearing
- Secretary of State decides whether to order extradition
Requesting states are advised to submit an initial draft request to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or, in the case of Scotland, to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) extradition team, so that any potential problems can be resolved.
This series of processes lets us see that successful extradition from the UK to Nigeria would take a while. Consequently, it would be nearly impossible for the Nigerian government to have successfully extradited Nnamdi Kanu from the UK within just a day or two of his arrest. Most importantly, it would have been only at the discretion of the UK Secretary of State. Suffice it to add that the successful extradition of Nnamdi Kanu from the UK to Nigeria could have been a little too complicated, considering that he has UK citizenship.
Czech Republic Extradition Process
Section 8 (1) of the Czech Republic’s 2009 criminal code, as amended, titled Subsidiary Principle of Universality, spells out the intricacies of extradition from the Czech Republic thus:
(1) The law of the Czech Republic shall also apply to assessment of criminality of an act committed abroad by a foreign national or a person with no nationality, who has not been granted permanent residence in the territory of the Czech Republic, if
(a) The act is criminal also under the law effective in the territory of its commission, and
(b) The offender was apprehended in the territory of the Czech Republic…
To make for clarity, Section 391 (1) to (3) of the Czech Republic Code of Criminal Procedure outline the processes and qualifications for extradition from the country:
(1) The Ministry of Justice shall be competent for receipt of requests of foreign authorities for extradition from the Czech Republic to a foreign State. Delivering the request to the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office shall also have the effect of service, the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office shall forward the request to a competent public prosecutor for the purpose of conducting preliminary investigation according to Section 394; a transcript of the request shall be delivered to the Ministry of Justice. If the competent public prosecutor is not known, the request shall be submitted to the Ministry of Justice.
(2) To a request of a foreign State for extradition shall be annexed
(a) Original or a verified copy of the convicting court decision, arrest warrant or another decision of the same effect,
(b) Description of the deed, which the extradition is requested for, including specification of time and place of its commission and its legal qualification,
(c) Text of the relevant legal regulations of the requesting State.
(3) If the documents and specifications referred to in sub-section (2) are not annexed to the requestor if the information provided by the requesting State are not sufficient, the Ministry of Justice shall request supplementary information…
Again, just as with the UK, the Czech Republic requires quite a bit of a process which might take quite a while to execute. However, there are doubts that an extradition process in Czech Republic may have been successful considering Section 393 (1) (e) (h) and (l) Czech Republic Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows:
(1) Extradition of a person to a foreign State shall be inadmissible if:
(e) the offence, which the extradition is requested for, is of an exclusively political or military nature
(h) the offence which the person is requested for is punishable by death in the requesting state, except for cases where the requesting State guarantees that the death penalty shall not be imposed.
(l) there is a reasonable belief that in the requesting State, the requested person would be subject to persecution for his origin, race, religion, membership to a certain national or group, citizenship, or political beliefs…
Brazil Extradition Processes
The Article 76, Article 80, Article 81, and Article 84 to Article 86 of the Foreign National in Brazil Legislation clearly spells out the procedure for extradition thus:
Article 76: Extradition shall be granted in cases where the requesting government bases its request on a treaty or where reciprocity is promised.
Article 80: The extradition shall be requested via diplomatic channels; in the absence of a diplomatic agent in the requesting State, then directly from one government to the other, and the request shall be accompanied by a certified copy or certificate of the guilty sentence, indictment or order of preventive custody, issued by a Judge or other competent authority. Said document or another document attached to the request shall contain precise indications about the place, time, nature and circumstances of the criminal act, the identity of the criminal to be extradited, and a copy of the legal texts about the crime, the sentence and its prescription.
Article 81. The Ministry of Foreign Relations shall forward the request to the Ministry of Justice who shall order the custody of the person to be extradited and leave him/her at the disposal of the Supreme Federal Court
Article 84. Once the imprisonment of the person to be extradited has been effected (article 81), the request shall be forwarded to the Supreme Federal Court.
Article 85. Upon receiving the request, the Relater shall fix the time and place of the questioning of the prisoner, and, as the case may be, shall appoint a trustee or legal counsel, if none has been retained by the prisoner, and the defense shall be allowed ten days as of the questioning
§ 01. The defense shall examine the identity of the defendant, defects in the form of the documents submitted, and/or the illegality of the extradition.
§ 02. If the legal documents have not been correctly attached to the legal action, the Court, as requested by the Federal Attorney General, may convert the judgment into an investigation to fill in the term of sixty (60) days after which the request shall be examined independently from the investigation.
§ 03.The term as mentioned in the previous paragraph shall start on the day when the Ministry of Foreign Relations notifies the Diplomatic Mission of the requesting State.
Article 86. Once the extradition has been granted, such fact shall be informed by the Ministry of Foreign Relations to the Diplomatic Mission of the requesting State which, within sixty days as of the notification, shall remove the extradited person from the Brazilian territory.
The Brazilian law requires a formal arrest of the person to be extradited, taken into custody, and tried on the Brazilian soil, just as with the UK, to ascertain the legality of the extradition. Now, the processes required is likely to take quite a while to be effected. However, it is important to also note that the request for extradition will not be accepted in any of the cases, as spelt out in the Article 77 of the document:
I – the subject is a Brazilian, unless the acquisition of this nationality has occurred after the fact motivating the extradition request;
II – the fact giving cause to the request is not considered a crime in Brazil or in the requesting State;
III – Brazil is competent to judge the crime attributed to the alien;
IV – the Brazilian law assigns to the involved crime a prison sentence of one year or less;
V – the alien is the defendant in legal action in progress, or was convicted or absolved in Brazil for the same fact causing the extradition request;
VI – the punishment has become null and void due to prescription in accordance with the Brazilian law or the law of the requesting State;
VII – the alleged crime is a political crime; and
VIII – the alien is expected to be judged by a politically biased court.
Kenya Extradition Processes
Section 5 to Section 9 of the Kenyan Extradition (Contiguous and Foreign Countries) Act spells out the nitty-gritties of Kenya’s extradition processes. Section 5 (1) and (2) states that:
(1) A requisition for the surrender of a fugitive criminal of any country who is in or suspected of being in Kenya shall be made to the Minister by a diplomatic representative or consular officer of that country and, upon receipt of such requisition, the Minister may, by order under his hand, signify to a magistrate that a requisition has been made and require the magistrate to issue his warrant for the arrest and detention of the fugitive criminal.
(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the offence is one of a political character, he may refuse to make an order and may also at any time order a fugitive criminal accused or convicted of such offence to be discharged from custody.
Section 6 deals with the issuance for arrest of the fugitive on Kenyan soil. Subsection (1) states that the warrant for the arrest of a fugitive criminal, whether accused or convicted of a crime, who is in or suspected of being in Kenya, may be issued by a magistrate Subsection (3) states that the fugitive criminal when arrested on a warrant under this section shall be brought before a magistrate as soon as possible. According to Subsection (4), the fugitive criminal arrested and detained on a warrant issued without the order of the Minister shall be discharged by the magistrate unless the magistrate, within such reasonable time as, with reference to the circumstances of the case, he may fix, receives from the Minister an order signifying that a requisition has been made for the surrender of the criminal. Following up on Subsection (4), Subsection (5) states that the warrant of a magistrate issued in pursuance of this Part of this Act may be executed in any part of Kenya…
Section 7 Subsection (1) states that, when the fugitive is brought before the magistrate, magistrate will shall hear the case, the magistrate shall hear the case in the same manner and have the same jurisdiction and powers, as nearly as may be, as in a trial before a subordinate court. Subsection (2) states that the magistrate will examine the evidence brought for the in the case to ascertain if the crime committed is an extradition crime.
Subsection (2) and (3) of Section 8 states:
(2) In the case of a fugitive criminal alleged to have been convicted of an extradition crime, if such evidence is produced as, subject to the provisions of this Act would, according to the law of Kenya, prove that the prisoner was convicted of such crime, the magistrate shall commit him to prison, but otherwise shall order him to be discharged.
(3) If the magistrate commits such criminal to prison, he shall commit him to prison to await the warrant of the Minister for his surrender; and the magistrate shall forthwith send to the Minister a certificate of the committal and such report on the case as he may think fit.
Section 9 deals with the process of surrendering the fugitive to the requesting country. Subsection (1) states that when a magistrate commits a fugitive criminal to prison, he shall inform the criminal that he will not be surrendered until after the expiration of fifteen days and that he has a right to apply for the issue of directions in the nature of habeas corpus. Subsection (2) states that after the expiration of the period of fifteen days, or, if the fugitive is not set at liberty by the court having applied for the issue of directions in the nature of habeas corpus, then the Minister may by warrant under his hand order the fugitive criminal… to be surrendered to such person as is in his opinion, duly authorized to receive the fugitive criminal by the country from which the requisition for the surrender proceeded, and the fugitive criminal shall be surrendered accordingly.
Again, in conclusion, we see a very detailed process required for extradition. A notable highlight relevant to the context of our discussion is found in Section 9 subsection (1) where the fugitive will not be surrendered until after the expiration of fifteen days. This expands the odds of the chances that Nnamdi Kanu was extradited from Kenya.
Ethiopia Extradition Processes
Article 21 and 22 of the Ethiopian Penal Code spells out the legal processes for extradition in Ethiopia thus:
Article 21 (1) and (3)
(1)
Any foreigner who commits an ordinary offence outside the territory of Ethiopia and who takes refuge in Ethiopia maybe extradited, in accordance with the provisions of the law, treaties or international custom; extradition shall be granted on the application made in proper form by the State where the offence was committed for purpose of trial under the territorial law when the offence does not directly and principally concern the Ethiopian State
(3)
In all cases where an offence raises a question of extradition the request shall be dealt within accordance with the principles of Ethiopian law and provisions of existing treaties.
Article 22 (2)
(2)
The foreign sentence shall not be recognized unless passed by an ordinary court and not by a special tribunal for an offence punishable….
While this may not be as comprehensive enough at first glance, it indicates that some documentation and, perhaps, preliminary trial is required to ascertain if the extradition is justified. The latter part of Article 21 (1) helps us see this.
A general examination of the extradition laws of these countries indicates that an extradition process isn’t as direct and straightforward as the Nigerian government would probably have us believe. Another notable legal implication of Kanu’s arrest is the fact that the Nigerian government is at a risk of breaching an important international law and probably even clashing with British authorities. This legal implication is birthed by the fact that Kanu, being a British citizen, was traveling with his British passport.
The British Passport Factor
One of Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyers, Aloy Ejimakor, in a letter dated June 30, 2021, addressed to the British High Commissioner, makes a few salient points (PM News Nigeria, July 2021):
British High Commission
Plot 1137
Diplomatic Drive
Central Business District
Abuja
Dear Madam High Commissioner
RE: Urgent Request For Consular Assistance To OKWU-KANU, Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny (A British Citizen)
We are Solicitors to above-named British citizen, on whose behalf and Instruction we write this Letter to request an urgent Consular assistance to him.
Mr. Okwu-Kanu (aka Nnamdi Kanu) is the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and Director of Radio Biafra, both of which are corporate citizens of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Kanu resides in the United Kingdom, from which soil he departed on an overseas travel on or about June 19, 2021 on a British Passport…
Mr Kanu is a British citizen who was traveling on a valid British passport when he was seized in a third country and forcibly brought to Nigeria. Such act constitutes an unlawful rendition of a bonafide British citizen.
He was not traveling on Nigerian passport or the passport of any other country, including that of Kenya.
There is no extant Order of extradition by any British Court or any other foreign Court (including Kenya) and we are informed that there is no pending extradition proceedings standing against him in Britain or Kenya.
There is no deportation Order by any Kenyan Court or other authority that made him subject to deportation. But if there was, the country of his deportation should have been Britain on which passport he was travelling. Deporting him to Nigeria just because he was born in Nigeria, but not travelling on her passport, is unlawful under international law.
Was Nnamdi Kanu Kidnapped?
Considering that Nnamdi Kanu appeared to have been intercepted in a foreign country and flown into Nigeria almost immediately gives us reasons to believe that it isn’t quite likely that there was an extradition process. If this is the case, a probably answer to the Nnamdi Kanu arrest mystery is that the Dikko affair came to play again, albeit successfully.
The Dikko Affair
“The Dikko Affair” is an expression used to describe the joint effort of four Nigerian and Israeli citizens to kidnap Umaru Dikko, a former minister of transport, from his London Apartment in 1984.
Dikko served under Shehu Shagari’s government between for the duration of the tenure (1979 to 1983).
It is believed that the men who attempted to kidnap Dikko were from the Nigerian military government and the Israeli secret service, Mossad, and were operating in an attempt to get him into Nigeria to face charges of corruption against him. He was forcefully taken from his home in London, bundled into a van, and taken to Stansted Airport where a Nigerian Cargo aircraft waited. He was drugged, bound, and stuffed into a wooden crate, while the men also hid themselves in another wooden crate.
The plans of Dikko’s abductors failed when Custom officials prevented the plane from taking off, having observed that the two wooden crates didn’t have diplomatic clearance. The crates were open, and both Dikko and the men were found. Dikko later regained consciousness at the hospital while his abductors were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each. Both Nigeria and Israel denied having a part in the failed attempt.
The suspicious approach with which Nnamdi Kanu was taken into custody and the rather ominous reticence of the Nigerian government on the issue gives us reasonable grounds to believe that he was not arrested and extradited, but kidnapped. Besides, it doesn’t seem like the Nigerian government had met or attempted to meet the Extradition statutory requirements of any of the most likely countries, considering the duration of his arrest, lack of relevant information, etc. Many notable Nigerians have lent their credence to support the kidnap narrative. Professor Wole Soyinka, the Nobel laureate, for instance, was quoted to have opined:
It’s not for me to tell the president to prepare itself because it’s going to be a huge squawk when the truth about how Kanu was arrested comes out. People are alleging this or that. That is one phase whether Nigeria has acted outside international law. The second issue, however, has to do with Kanu’s conduct outside the nation. There’s been a level of hate rhetoric which has been unfortunate, from Kanu. Hate rhetoric is an issue that can only be judged by the laws of any nation. Was it right ‘to have been kidnapped?’ You can say intercepted as much as you want, but I think Kanu was kidnapped. That is wrong internationally and morally (The Cable, July 2021).
Representatives of the Nigerian government have, however, denied this accusation, maintaining that they carried out a legal transaction in bringing Nnamdi Kanu into Nigeria. The Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, in response to similar accusations, stated that Kanu’s arrest was carried out in an “internationally recognized manner.” In his words, “there was no illegality in the entire process, and the question of illegality doesn’t even arise” (Vanguard, July 2021). However, the questions on the minds of many Nigerians remain unanswered. The government hasn’t unequivocally stated the country from which Nnamdi Kanu was taken into custody and if there was a formal extradition process.
The government’s unwillingness to provide clear details about Nnamdi Kanu’s arrest indicate the chances that they have something to hide. Even if this weren’t the case, the burden for accountability on the part of the Federal government should be enough reason to engage the public. Hence, it is not unreasonable for any citizen to suspect that the government indeed kidnapped Nnamdi Kanu, or that they have some other unfriendly details to hide from the public.
Conclusion
Injustice is a vice we should all unitedly stand against, irrespective of our different political stances. Whether or not you are a fan of Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB, or secessionist agitation at all, one reality we cannot avoid is that injustice is a vice that can haunt anyone at any time. Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr summed this up when he maintained that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Irrespective of varying stances, the best approach of any lover of justice would be to play a non-partisan role in their appraisal of the actions of the corridors of power. Our collective interrogation of the powers that be, in an attempt to unravel the mysteries surrounding Nnamdi Kanu’s arrest, would thus be a welcome development.
On the part of the Nigerian government, the legality and morality of the procedure for arresting Nnamdi Kanu remains a question to be answered. To answer this question would be to open up on the processes leading to the IPOB leader’s arrest, while also providing proofs sufficient to indicate their total adherence to the rule of law throughout. The fact that the Kenyan government have denied involvement in the arrest and the fact that no other country has indicated that they interacted with Nigeria through any extradition process so far is a dent on the country’s public image. Similarly, if the British authorities would not make attempts to protect Nnamdi Kanu, considering that he was traveling with a British passport before the alleged interception, they would probably be giving themselves away as being complicit in the irresponsible process altogether.
Suffice it to add that the joke would be on the Nigerian government, should they proceed to try Nnamdi Kanu without opening-up on how he was arrested. The idea of carrying out a legal trial without legal transparency on their part is shamefully paradoxical. While they would claim to be attempting to enforce the law and pursue justice, they would be unwittingly neglecting the rule of law, if they would not prove to the world that they didn’t kidnap Nnamdi Kanu. Again, this would not only soil the image of our country, it would further enervate general trust in the Nigerian judiciary. This is not a projection we want for Nigeria.
Bibliography
Chinua, A. (1983). The Trouble with Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.
Biafran leader Nnamdi Kanu: The man behind Nigeria’s Separatists. (2017, May 5). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39793185
Eliasson, J. (2015, February 25). ‘We Must Safeguard Sustainable Development through Effective Crime Prevention,’ Deputy Secretary-General Tells General Assembly. United Nations. https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/dsgsm850.doc.htm
FG plots fresh charges against IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu. (2021, July 2). Vanguard. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/07/fg-plots-fresh-charges-against-ipob-leader-nnamdi-kanu/
How Nnamdi Kanu was arrested, whisked to Abuja. (2021, July 1). The Nation. https://thenationonlineng.net/how-nnamdi-kanu-was-arrested-whisked-to-abuja/amp/
Kanu Went to Kenya with British Passport: Lawyer Writes British High Commissioner. (2021, July 3). PM News. https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2021/07/03/kanu-went-to-kenya-with-british-passport-lawyer-writes-british-high-commissioner/
King, M.L. (1963, April 16). Letter From a Birmingham Jail. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Nnamdi Kanu: Address issues causing agitations in S-East, Ohanaeze youths tell FG. (2021, July 8). Vanguard. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/07/nnamdi-kanu-address-issues-causing-agitations-in-s-east-ohanaeze-youths-tell-fg/
Olisah, C. (2021, July 1). FG announces arrest of IPOB Leader, Nnamdi Kanu. Nairametrics. https://nairametrics.com/2021/06/29/fg-announces-arrest-of-ipob-leader-nnamdi-kanu/?amp
Ope, A. (2021, July 7). Nigeria’s Government Failings Are Fuelling Separatist Movements. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/07/nigeria-government-failings-separatist-movements-secession/
Ukpe, W. (2021, July 1). Nnamdi Kanu facing an 11-count charge of treason – FG. Nairametrics. https://nairametrics.com/2021/07/01/nnamdi-kanu-facing-an-11-count-charge-of-treason-fg/
