NNAMDI KANU’S TRIAL, A FIASCO WORSE THAN PREDICTED
https://trendsdynamics..com/2021/11/nnamdi-kanus-trial-fiasco-worse-than.html?m=1
(By Emeka Ugwuonye, Esquire)

Due process advocate (DPA)

It was here on this forum that I heard for the first time the idea that a prediction could be made with certainty. Otherwise, I had always thought that a prediction was the opposite of certainty in some ways. That idea of prediction with certainty got me to realize that some people have been reading my predictions with some reservations. They wanted me to color my prediction and add some elements of prayer to it. So, when I was predicting what would happen in the Nnamdi Kanu’s hearing today, I carefully omitted the worst-case scenarios. I did not want to tell the readers that I always feared that Nnamdi Kanu defense team is poorly led and that such poor leadership was going to lead that team to a disaster, the type that eventually happened today. Also, to avoid annoying the gullible IPOB members, I did not want to tell them that I foresaw that the next adjournment would be next year, with Nnamdi still in DSS custody. So, I stated it mildly by merely predicting that the trial would be adjourned probably till 24th November. That was predicting “without certainty” as they would like it.


Ipob leader Kanu


However, regardless of what we say or what we think, what will happen will happen. It is that logical flow of human action that matters, not what we think. So, my predictions are not meant to control what will happen. They are meant to make the most informed guess of what will happen. I believed that there was no way Nnamdi Kanu would be “released unconditionally” today as Barrister Ejiofor mislead the gullible followers of Nnamdi Kanu and the gullible believers in the immediate feasibility of the Biafra State of their territorial design. Predictions, though guesswork, require knowledge of relevant factors in their appropriate weight and measures and in their correct sequential order. So, to make the best guesses on the Nnamdi Kanu case, I had to rely on my deep understanding of the legal process, human nature, Nigerian society, history, etc.



When the lead defense lawyer for Nnamdi Kanu told his members that Nnamdi Kanu would be released unconditionally today, I knew he either did not understand the law or he had no faith in himself. Otherwise, how could you ask the court to transfer Nnamdi Kanu to Kuje prison and at the same time ask the same court to release him? It means, at best, that you are silent on important details. And that amounts to active deception.



Worse than my prediction, today, there was not even a hearing. The defense team staged a protest by way of a walkout on the court. And their reason was because the court or whoever manned the gate to the court did not allow Mr. Bruce Fein, an American legal consultant to Nnamdi Kanu to enter the courtroom. Watch my words: “Legal Consultant”. Each country or each jurisdiction determines who is authorized to appear in court as Counsel. In as much as Bruce Fein, a personal friend of mine actually, is a brilliant constitutional lawyer of international repute, he is not authorized to appear as counsel in Nigerian Courts. So, let us get it clear – Bruce Fein has not right of audience before Nigerian courts. And if he had no right of audience, he has not automatic right to be present in any court proceeding in Nigeria. If he was allowed in that court today, it would have been for a different good reason than that he is Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer. So, the argument that Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer (Bruce Fein) was denied right to be present in Nnamdi Kanu’s trial is not as meritorious as it sounds to the ear. Even Nnamdi Kanu, himself, admitted that Bruce Fein was to be in court only as an observer to observe the proceedings. So, he was never intended to be in court as Nnamdi Kanu’s counsel.



There is some comparison with a huge difference between what happened today and what happened in 1962 in Awolowo’s trial. Chief Obafemi Awolowo was tried, along with several others, for treasonable felony in 1962. The head of Awolowo’s defense team, a British lawyer, Mr. E.F.N Gratiaen, QC, was denied access into Nigeria by the immigration authorities, at the airport. Like in today’s case, the issue of access to counsel or right to counsel was raised. The constitutional law is clear: that a person standing trial for a criminal offense shall have the right to defend himself in person or by a counsel of his choice. At the time Awolowo stood trial, the Constitution in force was the 1960 Independence Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 21(5) (c) thereof preserved that right to counsel of one’s choice. Today, the operative Constitution is the 1999 Constitution (as Amended). Section 36 (6) (c) thereof preserves the right to counsel of one’s choice.



There is a huge difference between what happened in 1962 and what happened today. First, Mr. E. F. N. Gratiaen, QC, though a British citizen, had right of audience in Nigerian courts, according to the law of that time. (Until 1963, to practice law in Nigeria, you needed to be called to the English Bar. So, Mr. Gratiaen had right of audience in Nigerian court, provided he met all other requirements for him to be present in that court). He arrived in Nigeria lawfully. But the immigration authority denied him entry to Nigeria. They did so obviously to prevent Awolowo from having a counsel of his choice in accordance with the constitution. So, they allowed the administrative discretion of the Controller of Immigration to override the Constitutional right to counsel of a citizen (Awolowo). That was an issue. However, in today’s case, Mr. Bruce Fein is not a lawyer with right to appear in Nigerian courts. So, Nnamdi did not have constitutional right to be represented by Bruce Fein. Stopping Bruce Fein from entering that court today (where it was clear that most people that wanted to enter could not be allowed to enter) was more of a moral and ethical issue than a violation of constitutional right of Nnamdi Kanu.



But was it really right to stop Bruce Fein from entering? No! It was a very unwise thing to do. It helps Nnamdi Kanu’s propaganda machinery without adding value to the Nigerian Government’s case. Bruce Fein’s presence in court would not have hampered the proceedings. In fact, it would have been wonderful for the court to allow Bruce Fein to address the court off the record. Can you imagine how great it would have been if Bruce Fein was allowed into the court and the Judge said to him at the end of the trial: “Mr. Fein, could you please address the court off record”? He would say what he had to say. It would have amounted to nothing because it is off record. Yet, the world would feel that the Nigerian Government went extra mile to ensure that Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyers were heard. The Government would have gotten the glory without losing anything. But again, as has been the case, whenever Nigeria had the opportunity to be great, it will choose to be small. How can a court that has been admitting Ohaneze members as observers refuse to admit the only observer the defendant wanted to be in court? It was a terrible error of judgment. But let me make it clear: the judge did not know who was stopped and who was not stopped at the time it happened. It was only later that the judge knew. So, she still had time to address the matter, but she failed woefully.



It was after Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyers walked out of the court that it became obvious to the judge what had happened. The court had a number of options at that time. The court could have stood down the case for an hour to give chance for the matter to be resolved so that the case could go ahead. But instead, the court took the next available option, which was to ask Nnamdi Kanu if he would enter his own defense. That was sad. The court should know that Nnamdi Kanu did not want to defend himself in person. He already had counsel. The best thing would have been to allow him to opportunity to appoint new counsel. But in any case, since the offences he charged with carry capital punishment, he must be represented by counsel. So, it was pointless to ask him if he could take on his own defense. Assuming he had said yes, that would have placed the court in an awkward position.



We used to believe that action and reaction would be equal and opposite. But the reaction of Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyers was neither equal nor opposite to the stopping of Bruce Fein from entering the court. Their reaction aided the Government and prolonged the misery of their client and denied the society of the essential public good behind every court trial, which is achieve clarity in the obscurity of law. By walking out on the court, they embarrassed the judge without helping Nnamdi. The only thing they achieved was that they concealed the fact that even if the trial had held, they would still not have made any tangible difference – all the relief they sought would have been flatly denied. They cleverly hide their shortcomings and now left people wondering if they would have succeeded had there been a trial. The sole consequence of what they did is that Nnamdi will not be in court for the next two months. If their goal was to get Nnamdi released, their walking out failed to achieve that. If their goal was to have the court withdraw from the case for lack of jurisdiction, their move was against their motive. If their motive was to have Nnamdi transferred from DSS detention to the prison, their move today was contrary to their motive.



A good lawyer should never do anything that does not help his client or improve his client’s position in the law. I am still wondering how the decision to walk out on the court today helped Nnamdi Kanu. I can’t see any. A lawyer is not in a case for his own ego or for his own comfort or for his own aggrandizement. He is in a case to help his client, to better his condition, to advance justice on his side. The decision of the defense team to walk out on court was a terrible move. In fact, one should expect these lawyers to all withdraw from the case and allow Nnamdi to appoint a new set of lawyer. The present lawyers have placed their personality in issue. They have antagonized the court in a way that will always reflect adversely against their client’s interest. The best option for them now, to show their integrity and preserve their honor, is for them to resign. But Ejiofor cannot resign because this case is more about him than about saving his client. It makes him the most influential member of IPOB with all that goes with it.



Yes, it is true that in a case of this nature, propaganda has its role and importance. We expect Nnamdi Kanu to have a strong and elaborate propaganda program. But the lawyers must stay away from the propaganda department. The lawyers should focus on the law. The greatest problem in Nnamdi Kanu’s case is that it is the lawyers that are running the propaganda department. So, today in court, these lawyers were working in the propaganda department. And no wonder the outcome.



What do you expect to happen now? The trial gets delayed. The Government can relax. They now have two months to play with. They cannot be rushed. They will take their time to prepare better for their case. Nnamdi Kanu remains in limbo. For a man with such elaborate activity as seen in his running of the Radio Biafra and with millions of followers, it is terrible to be kept away from his followers. As for IPOB, they will continue to disintegrate without a clear leadership. As for Bruce Fein, he will return to Washington and wait.



I saw a video clip where Bruce Fein was saying that he would report to the US Congress that there was no fair trial in Nnamdi Kanu case. That was a bit funny. Why report to the US Congress? It was not the US Congress that sent you to observe the trial. It is a bit rude and unfortunate that you can report one country to the legislature of another country and expect anything out of it. Yes, Bruce Fein has friends in the US Congress. I know that as a fact. But I don’t see the difference that makes. If he reports to them, they will be hearing something they already knew, and which they cannot do anything about. They will weigh their interest in Nigeria and not find any basis to do anything. During the EndSARS massacre, both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (now President Biden) said things very critical of Nigerian government. But recently, you saw Biden hugging President Buhari. I don’t see any different the report of Bruce Fein would make, at least not in the immediate term and certainly not of any direct benefit to Nnamdi Kanu’s defense.



Well, the only hope now is if the High Court of Abia State hears the fundamental rights application which Nnamdi Kanu file there through one of his lawyers, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor. That is set for November 19, 2021. If that happens, there may be a decision that may add flavor to the case and give some respite to Nnamdi. Otherwise, it is till January 19, 2022 that Nnamdi will be seen in court again. All that will be happening is the weekly update that Ejiofor will be giving Nnamdi Kanu’s followers, which actually makes Ejiofor the de facto leader of IPOB, a position he so desperately covets.

https://trendsdynamics..com/2021/11/nnamdi-kanus-trial-fiasco-worse-than.html?m=1

NOTE: If you like or hate this post and the analysis, share it on your wall and invite your friends to this (DPA forum on Facebook) so they can join you in hating or liking more posts.

Lol no one owes any American access to our courts. I wonder who gave a terrorist supporter visa you come to Nigeria.