Nnamdi Kanu: Dialogue is the way forward, says lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor

• Says Malami’s allegations against Nnamdi Kanu defamatory, prejudicial, prosecutorial misconduct
• Insists Kanu believes nobody deserves to live in bondage, mortal fear of own country

Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, the Principal Partner at Adulbert Legal Services, Abuja, with affiliates in the United States, is cerebral. An activist, he understands law and deploys it maximally in fighting causes he believes in.

One of such causes is the right of Ndigbo to self-determination which explains why he is special counsel to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the group’s leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who is championing the cause and paying a steep price for his efforts.

In this exclusive interview with IKECHUKWU AMAECHI, Ejimakor, an expert in international law, says the Nigerian system has mistreated Kanu in profound ways.Advertisement

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, was finally arraigned in court on Thursday, October 21 after a long delay. Were you satisfied with the proceedings?

No. I was not. That it took almost four months to arraign a victim of extraordinary rendition is itself a form of torture. It also strains constitutionality and gives cause for genuine concerns about whether he is going to get a fair shake in the system. I am also disappointed that a routine request to transfer him to prison custody was denied. The truth is that the Nigerian system has mistreated Kanu in profound ways that would have broken an ordinary man. That he is still standing tall and remaining true to his convictions is the only silver lining that has come from all these trials and tribulations.

How hopeful are you now that he has finally taken his plea?

Taking a plea really goes to no material issue, especially in view of the weight of the preliminary objection that is standing against his trial. It remains to be seen whether the Court would do the right thing by declining jurisdiction. In the unique circumstances of this matter, jurisdiction (not trial) is the main issue for now.

Nnamdi Kanu’s supporters claim that he is a good man who is largely misunderstood. Those not within that circle disagree. As someone who knows him well, what kind of a person is he?

He is a very extraordinary man, with a helluva of good intentions. He hates nobody. He hates no religion. Ha hates no tribe. He only hates unjust systems. He is the poster child for all the angst of the downtrodden in society. His ideals and aspirations go beyond the peoples of former Eastern Nigeria.

The Federal Government that has labelled him a terrorist will obviously disagree with you. A terrorist is a vile character, are you saying that tag does not fit him?

Nnamdi Kanu is not a terrorist and the entire world, except the Nigerian State, knows it. He doesn’t deserve anything close to that tag. It is a characterization that shocks the conscience and runs contrary to the universal standards for designating anybody a terrorist.

The question concentrating many minds is what motivates him. What does he really want?

He is motivated by his quest for freedom from oppression. So, all his actions are geared towards putting an end to oppression. He believes, as other millions of people do, that Biafra is the best means to ending such oppression.

But some believe that his actions paradoxically have led to a spike in insecurity in the Southeast. What in your opinion will calm things down?

First, we have to tell ourselves the truth. The tendency to blame Kanu or IPOB for the insecurity in the Southeast is what is driving the insecurity, because it forecloses every effort that should have been made to identify the true culprits.

Another problem is this tendency to quickly resort to military options, which in and of itself fuels another genre of insecurity, this time coming from the State itself. So, my recommendation is this: Stakeholders need to get beyond shenanigans and sit across from one another and tell themselves the truth. The scapegoating won’t help anybody.

Recently, Nnamdi Kanu warned his supporters not to insult his lawyers. What informed that?

It was another way of alerting his true followers that anybody who insults his lawyers, but pretends to love him, is not a true supporter.

On Tuesday, September 7, you filed an application for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of Kanu before the High Court of Abia State sitting in Umuahia. Doesn’t that amount to a distraction considering the ongoing trial in Abuja?

The very serious business of suing to enforce Kanu’s fundamental rights can never be described as a distraction. Distraction from what? Rushing his trial and rushing to his conviction? The suit in Abia State is sui generis and actually aimed at recompense for Kanu, including particularly stopping his prosecution. So, anybody that considers it a distraction is secretly lusting for Kanu’s summary conviction. Simple!

Treasonable felony is a grievous crime that can even attract death penalty. Does that worry you and your client?

No. It doesn’t, because Kanu did not commit any treasonable felony. What Kanu did and does is a legitimate political opinion but one which the government of the day is suppressing by means of punishment of some sort. So, the treasonable felony charge, having sprouted from his spirited demands for self-determination, does not pass the muster of any criminal offense known to law.

To what extent does the fact of extraordinary rendition impact on this case?

The impact is profound. You have to get past the prosecutorial complications it has created before you can bring Kanu to answer to the Charges leveled against him. Extraordinary rendition is a barrier to prosecution in every clime that it has occurred. Nigeria won’t be the first country to do otherwise, because doing so would amount to legalizing it and rewarding the executive branch for such manifest illegality.

Nigeria’s attempted extraordinary rendition of Umaru Dikko in 1984 was the singular factor that blocked his prosecution for corruption in Nigeria. It also drew other countervailing measures that saw Britain severing relations with Nigeria for two years; the persons implicated were convicted and jailed; the aircraft detailed for the rendition was interdicted and a slew of Nigerian diplomats in UK were expelled. Across the world, Britain was applauded to have done the right thing by the way it reacted. In this matter of Kanu, the global community is looking to the Nigerian judiciary to also do the right thing.

What is Nnamdi Kanu’s message to his followers and Ndigbo generally?

His message is clear, and it is one of hope and consistency in remaining true to the ideals of freedom and social justice. He believes that nobody, Igbo or not, deserves to live in bondage and in mortal fear of the very country he calls his own. He wants people to know that there is an alternative to that.

What then do you make of the allegations levelled against him by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, at a press conference in Abuja on Friday?

The allegations are mere tales by the moonlight, as they do not reflect the Charges that are extant before the Court. They are also defamatory and highly prejudicial to the cases in court. In a sense, it smacks of prosecutorial misconduct of a kind that underscores the other misconducts that have become rampant in the overall handling of Kanu’s case.

Given that those grievous allegations were made just a day after Nnamdi Kanu appeared in Court, what do you think was Malami’s motive?

The motive is simple: trial by ordeal. Or trial by propaganda. If he has other motives, none of them can truly be said to be noble.

In view of this subjudicial step of trying to convict Kanu in the Court of Public Opinion, how hopeful are you that the trial will be free and fair and serve the ends of justice?

Every criminal defense counsel abides by a perpetual concern that his client will get a fair trial. Even the Constitution abides by the same concern, which is why it contains strict and copious provisions mandating fair trial for all. Some of the things that have happened in the Kanu matter have raised this concern to category red. Yet, as a Lawyer, I have no other choice than to hope that the judiciary will rise to the occasion and do manifest justice. All of that justice will turn on how the overriding issue of the extraordinary rendition will be handled by the court.

Igbo leaders and many lawyers were prevented from accessing the courtroom on Thursday. What do you say about the treatment meted out to Ezeife and others?

It is customary for Judges to permit non-parties, whether lawyers or lay people, to sit in Court to observe proceedings. This includes persons who are in court to ‘watch brief’ because of their special interest in the outcome of such proceedings.

At Kanu’s last adjourned hearing before the one on October 21, Dr Chukwuemeka Ezeife was allowed into Court and was introduced as watching brief for Ohanaeze Ndigbo. So was Goddy Uwazuruike, a senior lawyer, who sat next to me and was given leave to briefly address the Court from the bar. It is a routine thing that happens every day in various courts of Nigeria.

I was therefore troubled that on October 21, these eminent persons were not even allowed entry into the court premises, not to talk of the courtroom itself. A motley of Lawyers who volunteered their appearance for Kanu were also served the same treatment. It shouldn’t be this way and I minced no words raising my objections in a brief press briefing I gave on the spot.

How does that reflect on the Nigeria security personnel, particularly the police?

It reflects badly on the entire society. It is an exemplar of the institutional oppression that has boomeranged to the point of becoming the cannon fodder for agitations.

IPOB has once again declared a one week sit-at-home if Kanu is not released unconditionally before November 4. Do you think that is necessary?

Historically, sit-at-home is a nonviolent form of civil disobedience. It was deployed with remarkable success against the British Raj in India by Mahatma Gandhi. At the time in India, I think Gandhi was asked if it was necessary, and his measured response was that it was a necessary evil against the greater evil of British oppression.

In their reaction, the British colonialists saw it as the greatest sign ever that Indians were never relenting in their quest for freedom. And what did the British do? They abandoned their usual course of levying force and rhetoric against the people and resorted to dialogue. So, the issue is not whether any sit-at-home is necessary but why the authorities are not deploying the facility of a dialogue to containing it.

But what particular purpose will sit-at-home serve in the circumstance that Ndigbo have found themselves?

The IPOB that declared it clearly stated that it is aimed at encouraging the authorities to reverse the rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu by releasing him from his current incarceration.

Is Kanu in support of the sit-at-home?

It is not within my brief to know that; so I don’t know.

Won’t it impact negatively on the conduct of the Anambra governorship election on November 6?

I read somewhere that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said it won’t. Then, it later changed course and now says it will. If INEC thinks it will adversely impact the elections, it lies within its powers and mandates to seek solutions; civil solutions.

There seems to be a conspiracy of silence in the international community over the Kanu case. What is going on?

There is no such “conspiracy of silence”. I have laid the matter before the appropriate international tribunal that possesses jurisdiction and it is receiving the attention that it deserves. I am constrained from making all the details public but one thing I can tell you is this: Kanu’s extraordinary rendition will live in infamy and it won’t stick.

Isn’t Alaigbo suffering more from the consequences of the IPOB agitation?

This is a political question that I believe to be beyond the brief I am presently handling for Kanu.

Ndigbo seem to be standing between the devil and deep blue sea – a President Muhammadu Buhari that seems to be enjoying the macabre dance in the Southeast and an IPOB that is unrelenting. What is the way forward?

The answer is simple: Dialogue.

Credit:thenicheng