• News - North Central - FCT
  • Updated: April 10, 2024

Nnamdi Kanu's lawyers threaten to withdraw from trial

Nnamdi Kanu's lawyers threaten to withdraw from trial

Lawyers of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, have threatened to withdraw from the ongoing terrorism trial if the Department of State Services (DSS) denies them full access to their client who has been in their custody for about two years.

Addressing journalists in Abuja on Wednesday, the lead counsel to the IPOB leader, Alloy Ejimakor, said the legal team would not engage in any process that would bring injustice to their client, Kanu.

Ejimakor said, "We will not participate in the assassination of justice in a Nigerian court over the head of Nnamdi Kanu. We will refuse to be part of the programmed injustice."

He condemned the action of the DSS to deny access to Kanu by his legal team, which made it difficult to adequately prepare for his defence in the case of terrorism charges levelled against him.

Another member of the legal team, Nnaemeka Ejiofor, earlier declared that the federal government’s illegal rendition of Kanu from Kenya was an international crime.

He said: “If Nigeria were a human being, she would have been sent to prison for committing the heinous crime.

“Unless Nigeria frees itself from the crime of Kanu kidnapping, it will remain a criminal country,” he stated, adding that Kanu never committed a crime and therefore did nothing to justify his “persecution by the Nigerian government.”

According to Ejiofor, calling for self-determination and a referendum on whether the nation should emerge as Nigeria, is not a crime that should lead to the imprisonment of the IPOB leader.

“To avoid a vacuum, we manage it as a country and yet the government does not respect it until the people of Nigeria come together to decide whether it should exist as a nation. There can be no Nigeria there,” Ejiofor said.

He stressed the need for a review of the 1999 Constitution, which he said Nigerians were forced to adopt.

He claimed that Kanu was in detention at the direction of the federal government, thereby violating the court’s order, particularly the decision of the Supreme Court, which found that Kanu’s detention had no basis or leg to stand.

Related Topics

Join our Telegram platform to get news update Join Now

0 Comment(s)

See this post in...


We have selected third parties to use cookies for technical purposes as specified in the Cookie Policy. Use the “Accept All” button to consent or “Customize” button to set your cookie tracking settings