The legal team of the detained self acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu has cried out that there is no way that their client can get a fair trial, due to Kanu’s continued detention by the Department of the State Service (DSS).
The lawyers at a media briefing on Friday in Abuja lamented that it is difficult for Kanu to effectively defend himself against the alleged treasonable felony and terrorism charge when he can hardly access his lawyers or have any discussion without interference by operatives of the security agency.
Kanu has been in the custody of the DSS since 2021 after his arrest in Kenya and rendition to Nigeria to continue his trial.
He was first arrested in 2015, in Lagos, shortly after he entered the country on a visit and was later arraigned in 2016, alongside four others on offences bordering on treason.
However, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in 2017, admitted him to bail in the sum of N100 million and three sureties in like sum on health grounds to enable him prepare adequately for his trial.
The bail was, however, revoked in 2019 and a warrant of arrest issued against him, for jumping bail in late 2019 and abandoning his trial.
But Kanu has maintained that he did not jump bail but fled the country for his life after soldiers allegedly attacked his family’s home in Abia State, killing several persons in the process.
Although, Justice Nyako had at the resumed trial struck out eight out of the 15 amended charges filed against him by the federal government, she however refused to admit Kanu to another bail.
Speaking on Kanu’s travails in the last eight years, lawyers to the IPOB leader, lamented that but for the continued detention of their client in the custody of the DSS, he could easily floor the government in the current trial.
Kanu’s lead counsel, Mr Alloy Ejimakor, who on Friday in Abuja condemned the continued incarceration, observed that the pre-rendition charges against Kanu have been abandoned by the federal government, leaving only the fresh terrorism charge, adding that there is no basis to continue to keep Kanu in custody.
“You may ask why he was renditioned for a charge that has been abandoned”. He added that even the apex court in its judgment last December held that the process of bringing back Kanu to continue trial was wrong, including the revocation of his bail.
He said the legal team in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court that referred Kanu back to the high court for the continuation of his trial, filed a fresh application to restore his previous bail and the conditions attached thereto.
“The Supreme Court itself observed that there was manifest misrepresentation of facts that misled the trial court. Kanu deserves adequate facilities to defend himself,” he added.
Ejimakor berated the federal government for not granting Kanu the facility to adequately prepare his defence to the charge.
According to him, each time they try to meet with Kanu to prepare for trial, either the security agency denies them access or monitor their private conversations.
“We have concern about the privacy of our conversations. There was a day I was speaking with my client, in company of a colleague, and they took secret photographs of us. We were surprised when they later mistakenly filed that photo in court.
“When we visit him (Kanu), we whisper in fear, afraid that someone may be secretly recording the entire discussion.
“Under the present circumstance, our hope of getting a fair trial is zero. There is no way that Kanu can get a fair trial under the present condition of his detention. It is impossible,” Ejimakor insisted.
On his part, another member of the legal team, Mr. Jude Ugwuanyi, recalled how he was repeatedly denied access to the IPOB leader at his detention center.
“Each time we make effort to see him, we are restrained by the DSS. Meanwhile Section 36 of the Constitution, as amended, says that a defendant is entitled to have a lawyer of his choice.
“If we go there with documents, they are seized from us, photocopied or even not returned to us again. Even when we want to take note while speaking with our client, they will tell us that there is a number of pages we can write from what our client tells us.
“If they allow us access as required by law, we will certainly secure his discharge and acquittal,” Ugwuanyi added.
Meanwhile, the lawyers expressed their readiness to embrace any political solution to resolve the protracted court case between the federal government and Nnamdi Kanu.
According to them, the case has gone through its full circle, so the government, should sit back, take a look at the case again to see if it has merit or how it can end it.
The lawyers, referencing to Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act, stated that the trial judge can recommend reconciliation, otherwise referred to as “political solution” for the resolution of the case.
“The provision of that Section is not limited to civil matters alone. So, anyone that puts the issue on the table, we will consider it. Political solution makes better sense than prosecution.
“However, it is for the government to put it on the table, then we will consider it. Having said that, our duty first is to defend him and not to play politics. Right now, what is on our table is to fight for his defence.
“If they bring that option to the table and our client gives us the instruction, we will go for it,” Ejimakor said.
“We expect the administration of President Bola Tinubu to handle the matter different from the way the previous government did.
He cited the cases of the Yoruba Nation agitator, Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho, and that of social rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, where the government discontinued their prosecution and urged the government to do same with Kanu.
“We urge President Tinubu to carefully review this case which he inherited from the past administration and see if it was not politically motivated.
“Our client did not deserve the travail and tribulations he has been forced to endure. Sometimes, we do wonder what made his case unique. People wonder if it is because of where he hails from that made his case different”, Ejimakor stated.
