2015 13:33
Written by Emeka Ugwuonye

Understanding the latest treason
charges against Nnamdi Kanu

This is a long legal discourse. I broke it
into four parts to help you read it
without stress. You can read the part
you like and omit the part you are not
interested in. But if you read all of it,
you will be able to tell what will happen
in the court if Nnamdi Kanu's case
were to go through full trial. By the
way, the punishment for the offence
they charged Nnamdi Kanu with is now
life imprisonment. So, you need to read
this if you want to know whether he
will go to prison for life or not.

Part One: Introduction:

Given the wide public interest in the
case Nigerian government is making
against Nnamdi Kanu and two others, I
decided to explain better the provisions
of the law applicable. Then, I shall
place the law side by side with the
evidence and the charge filed by the
government. I will be analyzing this
case from the point of view of a
defense lawyer as well as the point of
view of the prosecutor.
Bear in mind that for the case to
succeed, the prosecutor must neatly tie
the three things together: - (1) the law,
(2) the evidence, and (3) the statement
of the charge. Nobody can do anything
about No. (1). That is the law. It is
there. Neither the prosecution nor the
defense can change the law.
Something can be done about No. (2).
It is the evidence. The prosecution
cannot create the evidence, but he
must work hard to discover it, develop
and package it well, and then present it
persuasively. No. (3) is really where
the prosecution must show experience
and skill. No. (3) relates to the
prosecutor’s ability to articulate the
crime. The prosecution must get it right
at the outset in order to tie the
evidence with the offence. This task
starts with the statement or definition
of the offence.
Before I go further, I want to observe
that the government has pursued this
case since September in the poorest
manner possible, which has now given
rise to the suspicion that the
government is on a vendetta mission
out of a mere obsession against
anything Biafra. Anything Biafra
invokes fear and intense hatred, such
that this government would go to all
extent, even to the point of destroying
Nigeria in order to stop the Biafra idea.
It is like a man that sets his house on
fire in order to hurt his roommate that
he dislikes.
If government were really honest and
sincere, it should have brought these
latest charges immediately after
Nnamdi Kanu was arrested in
September. If it had done that, it would
have been a different matter today.
There would not have been the costly
drama at the Magistrate court. There
would not have been the secret order
for 90-days detention, and there would
not have been the incident that led to
Justice Ahmed Mohammed being
forced to recuse himself from the case
on December 23, 2015.
Even without any feeling of sympathy
for Nnamdi Kanu, I stand firm in my
view that the poor handling of the case
so far is sufficient ground to dismiss
the case. It is a scandal, actually. The
Attorney General should immediately
discontinue these charges, set Nnamdi
free and send all the government
lawyers involved in this case back to
law school. But this is not expected to
happen because the government from
top level has been involved in the
unfortunate mishandling of this case.

Part Two: The Law and the Charge:

The government filed six counts of
treasonable offenses against Nnamdi
Kanu and two other persons under
Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act,
CAP C38 Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria 2004. What does that section
of the law say?
Section 41 provides thus:
“41. Any person who forms an
intention to effect any of the following
purposes, that is to say-
(c) to levy war against Nigeria in order
by force or constraint to compel the
President to change his measures or
counsels, or in order to put any force
or constraint upon, or in order to
intimidate or overawe any House of the
National Assembly or any other
Legislature or legislative authority; ..”
From the statement of the charge, the
government chose to go under
subsection (c) above (as it pertains to
the President as the target). We shall
discuss that further after reviewing the
statement of the charge or the
particulars of offence.

THE CHARGE:

As part of the
administration of criminal justice, the
prosecutor (the government) is
required to state what exactly the
accused person did, which amounted
to the offence. The critical requirement
of the charging process is that the
statement of the offence or particulars
of the offence: (a) must state the
offence with reference to a section of
Nigeria’s criminal law, (b) must state
exactly what acts the person
performed or failed to perform, which
constitutes the offence. The statement
of offence does not require that the
prosecutor state the evidence.
However, it requires that the
prosecutor make an allegation that the
accused person’s conduct covers all
the elements of the offence. Though
the evidence is not required in the
statement of the offence, the statement
cannot be vague. It must state what
the person did exactly and when and
where he did it.
The reason for this requirement is
obvious. It goes to the heart of due
process. In order for the accused
person to know the case he is to
defend against, he has to know exactly
what you allege he did wrong. He has
to know the time he did that thing and
the place you claim he did it. This is
because he may have an alibi. (The
day you said he killed someone might
turn out to be the day he was on
admission in a hospital. He needs to
bring up that alibi as defense against
the charge. But if you do not state the
day or period of time when he allegedly
killed the person, it will be impossible
for him to use the alibi. It is like
starting a soccer match without fixing
the goalpost until after the opponent
has kicked the ball into your penalty
box).
Now, let’s see how the government
stated the charge to see if it meets the
requirement I just explained. The
particulars of the offense read as
follows:
“That you, Nnamdi Kanu and other
unknown persons, now at large, at
London, United Kingdom, between
2014 and September, 2015 with
intention to levy war against Nigeria in
order to force the President to change
his measures of being the President of
the Federation, Head of State and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces of the Federation as defined in
Section 3 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as
amended) by doing an act to wit:
Broadcast on Radio Biafra your
preparations for the states in the
South-East geo-political zone, South-
South geo-political zone, the Igala
Community of Kogi State and the
Idoma/Igede Community of Benue
State to secede from the Federal
Republic of Nigeria and form
themselves into a Republic of Biafra,
and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 41(C) of the
Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”
Having now seen the law and read the
statement of the charge, what do you
think?

Part Three: The Evidence:

Part of the
due process requirement of Nigerian
law is that the government must
indicate the evidence it intends to rely
upon to prove the accused person
guilty beyond all reasonable doubts.
This evidence must be disclosed in
advance. In Nigeria, the evidence is
attached to the charge sheet
(technically called “Information” at the
State and Federal High Courts of
Nigeria). The evidentiary materials are
collectively titled “Proof of Evidence”.
It contains the names of witnesses
whom the government intends to call
to testify against the accused person.
It also contains any document or
videotapes, or recording of broadcasts
(as likely in this case) and other
exhibits or materials that tend to show
that the accused person actually did
what he is alleged to have done.
I have not seen the Information in this
case. However, I can safely assume
that the state would have listed the
names of DSS officers who will testify
as to how they arrested Nnamdi. This
is usually not necessary, but in
Nigeria, they waste everybody’s time
parading policemen who repeat the
same stories of how they arrested a
person and how they took his written
statement. They do this in Nigeria
because in almost all the cases, the
Nigerian police or DSS force accused
persons to make statements against
themselves and they try to use such
incriminating statements against the
accused person during trial. (Such
does not happen in other countries,
especially in developed democracies,
because the accused person hardly
ever makes statements without his
lawyers present. So, he is not forced to
incriminate themselves).
Given the poor manner the government
has developed this case, one can
assume that the government does not
have any real evidence. Nnamdi Kanu
would not have said anything to them
that is different from his call for Biafra
to break away from Nigeria. He does
not hide that fact. The fact that Nnamdi
does not hide the fact that he wants
Biafra to separate from Nigeria means
that there is no need trying to prove
that with any videotape of his Radio
Biafra broadcast. The evidence the
government needs is not evidence of
the broadcasts. They need to establish
an intention to “use force to compel or
constrain the President of Nigeria” to
do or from doing something that he
wanted to do (which is the “measures”
or “counsels” mentioned in the law).
Evidence of Nnamdi Kanu telling a
gathering of Igbo people in the
diaspora to raise money for him to buy
guns to fight for the independence of
Biafra is nearly useless. Such evidence
may simply mean that Nnamdi Kanu
was raising funds under false
pretenses, which is not an offence
charged. As an illustration, the mere
fact that a pastor is telling his
congregation to contribute money for
God does not really mean the money is
going to God. You cannot prove what
Nnamdi does with the money he raised
merely from what he said he would do
with the money. Likewise, pictures of
him with some boys with guns or
something that looked like guns will
not suffice. That might be a mere
commercial for fund raising. These are
mere pictures. Again, pictures of a
pastor praying so fervently do not
prove that he is really communicating
with God or that God is hearing what
he is saying.
The government needs evidence of
people who will come forward to testify
that Nnamdi recruited them and
instructed them to start war against
Nigeria. You need evidence of him
buying guns, giving guns to people,
training them on how to wage war
against Nigeria. Or you need evidence
of weapons or arms dumps seized
from him. Without such evidence, you
can’t win the case. Let’s say for the
sake of argument, just for the sake of
argument, that Nnamdi is a conman
who raises funds from some gullible
Igbo people by telling them he would
use the money to buy guns for the
independence of Biafra. That will not
be a treasonable offence. Some
pastors and juju men and even those
who sell to you some penis-
enlargement drugs are doing the same
thing. That is not evidence of
treasonable offence.
There is also one piece of evidentiary
information that will be very helpful to
Nnamdi at trial. Nnamdi’s lawyers can
easily show that Nnamdi and his group
never had even a single gun, that they
don’t even know how to hold a gun.
The way to show this is by the fact that
in all these clashes between the
supporters and Nnamdi and the police,
there has never been an incident where
any of his supporters had a gun. It had
always been the police and the army
that shot and killed his supporters. So,
where is the gun? Where are Nnamdi’s
guns if none of them has ever been
seen by the police who must have been
looking?

Part Four: Analysis And Conclusion:

The government cannot win this case.
The government lawyers are so
incompetent. The manner they defined
the charges or their statement of the
offence is so pathetic. It is not clear
whether he was to “levy” the “war”.
Would he first levy the war against the
Igala and Edoma people in order to get
them to join him to then ‘levy’ further
war against Nigeria? Or would he
persuade the Igala and Edoma people
by peaceful means to join him in the
war against Nigeria? If all the people
he wanted to be in Biafra voluntarily
join him, would there still be need for
war against Nigeria? It is clear that the
prosecution is struggling to formulate
the offence alleged. Also the reference
made to Section 3 of the Constitution is
such a dumb thing. A good defense
lawyer should be able to quash these
charges.

Post Script:

There is something very important
which I had missed. And that is the
effect of the right to free speech.
Whatever the section 41 (c) of the
Criminal Code Act may say, it must not
try to wipe out Kanu's freedom of
speech.
A number of times, what the law
considers a criminal conduct may be
something the constitution sees as a
right. In such situation, there is a
conflict between the constitution and
the law establishing the offence.
Naturally, the constitution should
prevail. But it takes an experienced
lawyer to invoke the supremacy clause
of the constitution successfully.
Most of the offensive remarks by Kanu
such as his remarks that Nigeria is a
zoo or that Buhari is Boko Haram, etc
all fall within his free speech rights. As
offensive as those may be, he has the
right to express himself. The fact that
the President does not like to hear
those words is immaterial. Likewise,
merely telling his audience openly that
they should leave Nigeria is a matter of
political speech. They are all protected
speech under the constitutional
enumeration of rights. You can't do
anything about it.

By Emeka Ugwuonye, Esquire


Cc: seun, OAM4J
Mynd44

Source- elombah.com/index.php/opinion/3615-understanding-the-latest-treason-charges-against-nnamdi-kanu

Wow...interesting!

@Op, I appreciate your effort in trying to clear the air as per the charges against Nnamdi Kanu. I also agree that it is a case that is poorly prepared just as it is badly presented.

However, your argument has some defects with regards to your defence of Nnamdi Kanu's position.

Firstly, we need to agree that there's no smoke without a fire. Nnamdi has only managed to land himself in a dangerous trouble because the secession bid was poorly planned & badly managed.

Not to deviate from the subject matter, Nnamdi's proclamations on his Radio Biafra are tantamount to incitement of violence & hatred which has the tendency of 'disturbing the peace' . I am open to what the provision of the law is with regards to 'disturbing the peace'. To say that he has the right to freedom of speech or expression, is to say that I(as a xtian) can go into a mosque and scream that Jesus is the only way. You know that my freedom of speech or expression has the tendency to cause wahala(disturbing the peace). This is how it all started in Rwanda(1994)...remember?

Secondly, for Nnamdi to clearly state that PMB is Bokoharam without concrete evidence is also tantamount to 'defamation of character' . In your submission, you mentioned that it holds no water(paraphrasing your statement) but you certainly know what Libel means.

Nnamdi Kanu's choice of words in his broadcast on Radio Biafra are not those attributed to a genuine freedom fighter that he purports to be, even agitating for a nation-state not yet born while he is still a subject under the extant law of our dear Nigeria. I don't think you have an idea of the gravity of his actions because they can be described as an act or instance of open revolt against a constituted government. This is a kind of behaviour inadvertently aimed at destabilizing the polity.

There are many other points I can argue here but I prefer to keep it short.

great analysis, this part got me laughing uncontrollable

Anything Biafra
invokes fear and intense hatred, such
that this government would go to all
extent, even to the point of destroying
Nigeria in order to stop the Biafra idea

why the fear of Biafra evokes such trepidation among non biafrans should be a subject of research among top psychlogist

There is also one piece of evidentiary
information that will be very helpful to
Nnamdi at trial. Nnamdi’s lawyers can
easily show that Nnamdi and his group
never had even a single gun, that they
don’t even know how to hold a gun.
The way to show this is by the fact that
in all these clashes between the
supporters and Nnamdi and the police,
there has never been an incident where
any of his supporters had a gun. It had
always been the police and the army
that shot and killed his supporters. So,
where is the gun? Where are Nnamdi’s
guns if none of them has ever been
seen by the police who must have been
looking

if Nigeria had very good Legal team then Bakassi would not have gone to cameroon

Your sabi booku.

How will this jargon save the Lunatic Albino (aka The Dilector and Toothless Lion) from spending Xmas and New Year in the dungeon of DSS?

The stup1d lawyer does not know that freedom of speech or expression comes with a responsibility of guarding your utterances and not threatening to kill other ethnicities.

Infact, the Lunatic Albino's cell should be directly under that of Charles Taylor at the Hague by now.

superstar1:
How will this jargon save the Lunatic Albino from spending Xmas and New Year in the dungeon of DSS?

The end justifies the means

superstar1:
How will this jargon save the Lunatic Albino from spending Xmas and New Year in the dungeon of DSS?

The stup1d lawyer does not know that freedom of speech or expression comes with a responsibility of guarding your utterances and not threatening to kill other ethnicities.

Infact, the Lunatic Albino cell should be directly under that of Charles Taylor at the Hague by now.

A very big Legal war might have started between Nnamdi Kanu's team and Nigeria , he might spend the xmas in jail as he is not even interested in coming out , but what might follow and the outcome of the legal war is what is unpredictable, the Nigerian legal team lost Bakkassi shamelessly to cameroon some years back.
This case might end at the world court ifNigeria does not take precaution with Nigeria loosing its territories in an un explanable judicial blunder.

asorocker:


A very big Legal war might have started between Nnamdi Kanu's team and Nigeria , he might spend the xmas in jail as he is not even interested in coming out , but what might follow and the outcome of the legal war is what is unpredictable, the Nigerian legal team lost Bakkassi shamelessly to cameroon some years back.
This case might end at the world court ifNigeria does not take precaution with Nigeria loosing its territories in an un explanable judicial blunder.

Who is going to World Court with you over a nonetity?

Abeg Abeg abeg, ICC does not have the time of noise makers like The Dilector, that was threatening to kill others. Infact the court will rule that he should be buried alive in the middle of Sahara Desert.

Useless Lawyer! Nkita Ara!!

kingbasil:


The end justifies the means... spænding the xmas and new year in jail doesn't change the fact that he is now more motivated to achieve his objective.

Moti-gini?

If he is motivated or not, that is the headache of the Lunatic Albno.

The fact remains, he is a half-cooked beans eating prisoner of DSS.

What he lacks in intellectual capacity, he made up for in senseless noise making.

asorocker:


A very big Legal war might have started between Nnamdi Kanu's team and Nigeria , he might spend the xmas in jail as he is not even interested in coming out , but what might follow and the outcome of the legal war is what is unpredictable, the Nigerian legal team lost Bakkassi shamelessly to cameroon some years back.
This case might end at the world court ifNigeria does not take precaution with Nigeria loosing its territories in an un explanable judicial blunder.

Illiterate IPOB!

So, Nairaland can't leave Biafra matter alone


NL stop reporting about Biafra as captured in your rules ..

IPOB youths everywhere

Your Dilector is in the 'Zoos' custody and there is nothing you can do about it!

Nnamdi Kanu will be executed in a few months time

You can eat sand or kill yourself after

Why people from certain parts of the country loose sleep over Biafra is really a mystery

asorocker:
Why people from certain parts of the country loose sleep over Biafra is really a mystery

NL no go fit stop reporting it ..

Anybody wan bet ..rule 9 ko

PROFILE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NIGERIA in April 1846, at the invitation of the two kings of calabar, a team of missionaries from the church of Scotland Mission,led by Rev.Hope Masterton Waddell, arrived calabar where they set up the first congregation of what is now known as the presbyterian church of Nigeria.From calabar,the church began to grow.in 1858,it was constituted as the presbytery of Biafra.

And what amazes me is the height at which people of the wasted region try their possible best to derail every Biafran thread.....One thing is for sure, Nnamdi is coming outta that cell everly strong and following the analysis of this matter by this erudite lawyer, it obvious that the case is as good as a refuse at the dustbin

if you Google all the trade treaty that the British merchant sign in Biafra Land eg the one of 24 June 1827,it was all by the ijow&the itchekerri chiefs and not even with the igbos.but today some VAGABONDS who don't know their history eg oil soup people and their masters up north will tell you Biafra is about 5 state don't put Niger delta people ooh! nonsense we are whiter than white,and whiter than snow

superstar1:


Moti-gini?

If he is motivated or not, that is the headache of the Lunatic Albno.

The fact remains, he is a half-cooked beans eating prisoner of DSS.

What he lacks in intellectual capacity, he made up for in senseless noise making.

Well whatever makes your xmas merry...

This is Dilector deence or case as presented by rogue lawyer Emeka Ugwuonye. Government took her time and the rogue albino will do his time in zoo where people like him belong. He sat down on his desk and decided a criminal case without looking at the proof of evidence. That guy is a dunce as well as a fraud.
http://saharareporters.com/2015/06/02/us-court-dismisses-rogue-attorney-emeka-ugwuonye%E2%80%99s-bankruptcy-filing

omooba969:
Wow...interesting!

@Op, I appreciate your effort in trying to clear the air as per the charges against Nnamdi Kanu. I also agree that it is a case that is poorly prepared just as it is badly presented.

However, your argument has some defects with regards to your defence of Nnamdi Kanu's position.

Firstly, we need to agree that there's no smoke without a fire. Nnamdi has only managed to land himself in a dangerous trouble because the secession bid was poorly planned & badly managed.

Not to deviate from the subject matter, Nnamdi's proclamations on his Radio Biafra are tantamount to incitement of violence & hatred which has the tendency of 'disturbing the peace' . I am open to what the provision of the law is with regards to 'disturbing the peace'. To say that he has the right to freedom of speech or expression, is to say that I(as a xtian) can go into a mosque and scream that Jesus is the only way. You know that my freedom of speech or expression has the tendency to cause wahala(disturbing the peace). This is how it all started in Rwanda(1994)...remember?

Secondly, for Nnamdi to clearly state that PMB is Bokoharam without concrete evidence is also tantamount to 'defamation of character' . In your submission, you mentioned that it holds no water(paraphrasing your statement) but you certainly know what Libel means.

Nnamdi Kanu's choice of words in his broadcast on Radio Biafra are not those attributed to a genuine freedom fighter that he purports to be, even agitating for a nation-state not yet born while he is still a subject under the extant law of our dear Nigeria. I don't think you have an idea of the gravity of his actions because they can be described as an act or instance of open revolt against a constituted government. This is a kind of behaviour inadvertently aimed at destabilizing the polity.

There are many other points I can argue here but I prefer to keep it short.

The body language exhibited in the above post is one such reason Nigeria is perpetually backward. No wonder some people actually want to leave the cesspit. You do not arrest a person for 'defamation of character' without a court order. Only fools arrest a person on instance of open revolt when such revolt has not occurred. As a self-determination agitator, Kanu's choice words were in order. Kanu never called for the overthrow of constituted government but simply begged to split. The 1999 Nigerian constitution guarantees the right to self-determination. It is unfortunate Nigeria is led by bunch of zombies who do not know the meaning of treason. If one calls out a leader in Nigeria, it becomes a treasonable offence. What a country.

asorocker:


A very big Legal war might have started between Nnamdi Kanu's team and Nigeria, ]he might spend the xmas in jail as he is not even interested in c8oming out ,but what might follow and the outcome of the legal war is what is unpredictable, the Nigerian legal team lost Bakkassi shamelessly to cameroon some years back.
This case might end at the world court ifNigeria does not take precaution with Nigeria loosing its territories in an un explanable judicial blunder.

Why the long epistles to free him if he's not "interested" to come out. He should be left to rot in jail. I wish the govt had put him in Boko haram prison in Borno, he would have been singing opera songs of forgiveness by now.

When PMB said in his xmas message, that any group that threatens the security of this nation will be severely dealt with, u people think that speech was directed at BH or Shiite, abi?

omooba969:
Wow...interesting!

@Op, I appreciate your effort in trying to clear the air as per the charges against Nnamdi Kanu. I also agree that it is a case that is poorly prepared just as it is badly presented.

However, your argument has some defects with regards to your defence of Nnamdi Kanu's position.

Firstly, we need to agree that there's no smoke without a fire. Nnamdi has only managed to land himself in a dangerous trouble because the secession bid was poorly planned & badly managed.

Not to deviate from the subject matter, Nnamdi's proclamations on his Radio Biafra are tantamount to incitement of violence & hatred which has the tendency of 'disturbing the peace' . I am open to what the provision of the law is with regards to 'disturbing the peace'. To say that he has the right to freedom of speech or expression, is to say that I(as a xtian) can go into a mosque and scream that Jesus is the only way. You know that my freedom of speech or expression has the tendency to cause wahala(disturbing the peace). This is how it all started in Rwanda(1994)...remember?

Secondly, for Nnamdi to clearly state that PMB is Bokoharam without concrete evidence is also tantamount to 'defamation of character' . In your submission, you mentioned that it holds no water(paraphrasing your statement) but you certainly know what Libel means.

Nnamdi Kanu's choice of words in his broadcast on Radio Biafra are not those attributed to a genuine freedom fighter that he purports to be, even agitating for a nation-state not yet born while he is still a subject under the extant law of our dear Nigeria. I don't think you have an idea of the gravity of his actions because they can be described as an act or instance of open revolt against a constituted government. This is a kind of behaviour inadvertently aimed at destabilizing the polity.

There are many other points I can argue here but I prefer to keep it short.

open your brain and assimilate what the bright lawyer has explained. you are just spewing ignorance without tact or knowledge . how does your watery argument amount to treason

superstar1:


Moti-gini?

If he is motivated or not, that is the headache of the Lunatic Albno.

The fact remains, he is a half-cooked beans eating prisoner of DSS.

What he lacks in intellectual capacity, he made up for in senseless noise making.

and I suppose you are intelligent with all the poorly worded nonsense you've been saying so far

omooba969:
Wow...interesting!

@Op, I appreciate your effort in trying to clear the air as per the charges against Nnamdi Kanu. I also agree that it is a case that is poorly prepared just as it is badly presented.

However, your argument has some defects with regards to your defence of Nnamdi Kanu's position.

Firstly, we need to agree that there's no smoke without a fire. Nnamdi has only managed to land himself in a dangerous trouble because the secession bid was poorly planned & badly managed.

Not to deviate from the subject matter, Nnamdi's proclamations on his Radio Biafra are tantamount to incitement of violence & hatred which has the tendency of 'disturbing the peace' . I am open to what the provision of the law is with regards to 'disturbing the peace'. To say that he has the right to freedom of speech or expression, is to say that I(as a xtian) can go into a mosque and scream that Jesus is the only way. You know that my freedom of speech or expression has the tendency to cause wahala(disturbing the peace). This is how it all started in Rwanda(1994)...remember?

Secondly, for Nnamdi to clearly state that PMB is Bokoharam without concrete evidence is also tantamount to 'defamation of character' . In your submission, you mentioned that it holds no water(paraphrasing your statement) but you certainly know what Libel means.

Nnamdi Kanu's choice of words in his broadcast on Radio Biafra are not those attributed to a genuine freedom fighter that he purports to be, even agitating for a nation-state not yet born while he is still a subject under the extant law of our dear Nigeria. I don't think you have an idea of the gravity of his actions because they can be described as an act or instance of open revolt against a constituted government. This is a kind of behaviour inadvertently aimed at destabilizing the polity.

There are many other points I can argue here but I prefer to keep it short.

With due respect to your observation: you just spoke from NairaLand lay man's point of view while the narration up there is from a legal point of view.

Read it again and edit your argument, it's too Nairalandized!! !!!!!

N

omooba969:
Wow...interesting!

@Op, I appreciate your effort in trying to clear the air as per the charges against Nnamdi Kanu. I also agree that it is a case that is poorly prepared just as it is badly presented.

However, your argument has some defects with regards to your defence of Nnamdi Kanu's position.

Firstly, we need to agree that there's no smoke without a fire. Nnamdi has only managed to land himself in a dangerous trouble because the secession bid was poorly planned & badly managed.

Not to deviate from the subject matter, Nnamdi's proclamations on his Radio Biafra are tantamount to incitement of violence & hatred which has the tendency of 'disturbing the peace' . I am open to what the provision of the law is with regards to 'disturbing the peace'. To say that he has the right to freedom of speech or expression, is to say that I(as a xtian) can go into a mosque and scream that Jesus is the only way. You know that my freedom of speech or expression has the tendency to cause wahala(disturbing the peace). This is how it all started in Rwanda(1994)...remember?

Secondly, for Nnamdi to clearly state that PMB is Bokoharam without concrete evidence is also tantamount to 'defamation of character' . In your submission, you mentioned that it holds no water(paraphrasing your statement) but you certainly know what Libel means.

Nnamdi Kanu's choice of words in his broadcast on Radio Biafra are not those attributed to a genuine freedom fighter that he purports to be, even agitating for a nation-state not yet born while he is still a subject under the extant law of our dear Nigeria. I don't think you have an idea of the gravity of his actions because they can be described as an act or instance of open revolt against a constituted government. This is a kind of behaviour inadvertently aimed at destabilizing the polity.

There are many other points I can argue here but I prefer to keep it short.

The OP did a yeoman's job with his analysis. However, his lack of objectivity exposed his ignorance as you rightly pointed out in your comments above.

Libel and inciting people to violence against the government are equally weighty allegations.

I pray Mr Kanu pulls through. I pray lessons are learnt by all parties. I pray he is given consideration and sins forgiven. I pray he agitates for the Biafra of his and supporters' dream in the most legal and constitutional manner.

MKO died in detention in 1998. 17 years after, Nigeria has moved on. If he did not die, there would have still been the advent of the 4th Republic.

realborn:
N

The OP did a yeoman's job with his analysis. However, his lack of objectivity exposed his ignorance as you rightly pointed out in your comments above.

Libel and inciting people to violence against the government are equally weighty allegations.

I pray Mr Kanu pulls through. I pray lessons are learnt by all parties. I pray he is given consideration and sins forgiven. I pray he agitates for the Biafra of his and supporters' dream in the most legal and constitutional manner.

MKO died in detention in 1998. 17 years after, Nigeria has moved on. If he did not die, there would have still been the advent of the 4th Republic.

It is funny you used MKO as a case study when everyone knows how fearful and weak his people are


Kanu on the other hand has a brave people SS/SE of Nigeria backing him and has demonstrated it through peaceful protest.

omooba969:
Wow...interesting!

@Op, I appreciate your effort in trying to clear the air as per the charges against Nnamdi Kanu. I also agree that it is a case that is poorly prepared just as it is badly presented.

However, your argument has some defects with regards to your defence of Nnamdi Kanu's position.

Firstly, we need to agree that there's no smoke without a fire. Nnamdi has only managed to land himself in a dangerous trouble because the secession bid was poorly planned & badly managed.

Not to deviate from the subject matter, Nnamdi's proclamations on his Radio Biafra are tantamount to incitement of violence & hatred which has the tendency of 'disturbing the peace' . I am open to what the provision of the law is with regards to 'disturbing the peace'. To say that he has the right to freedom of speech or expression, is to say that I(as a xtian) can go into a mosque and scream that Jesus is the only way. You know that my freedom of speech or expression has the tendency to cause wahala(disturbing the peace). This is how it all started in Rwanda(1994)...remember?

Secondly, for Nnamdi to clearly state that PMB is Bokoharam without concrete evidence is also tantamount to 'defamation of character' . In your submission, you mentioned that it holds no water(paraphrasing your statement) but you certainly know what Libel means.

Nnamdi Kanu's choice of words in his broadcast on Radio Biafra are not those attributed to a genuine freedom fighter that he purports to be, even agitating for a nation-state not yet born while he is still a subject under the extant law of our dear Nigeria. I don't think you have an idea of the gravity of his actions because they can be described as an act or instance of open revolt against a constituted government. This is a kind of behaviour inadvertently aimed at destabilizing the polity.

There are many other points I can argue here but I prefer to keep it short.

You couldn't have said it better

realborn:
N

The OP did a yeoman's job with his analysis. However, his lack of objectivity exposed his ignorance as you rightly pointed out in your comments above.

Libel and inciting people to violence against the government are equally weighty allegations.

I pray Mr Kanu pulls through. I pray lessons are learnt by all parties. I pray he is given consideration and sins forgiven. I pray he agitates for the Biafra of his and supporters' dream in the most legal and constitutional manner.

MKO died in detention in 1998. 17 years after, Nigeria has moved on. If he did not die, there would have still been the advent of the 4th Republic.

May God answer all your prayer, if actually it's true you prayed for him.

Never the less, his issue can and shouldn't be compared to MKO as they are very different.

I, who is responding to you right now is ready to die for the course which that man is fighting for..

Question: how many Yoruba where ready to die for MKO, were you?

Answer: Non

Eye opener: the demonstration (riot) that ensued in Lagos the were carried out by more Igbos than Yoruba.


My elder brother and his friends were among the demonstration of which he was arrested and we saw him on National Television NTA from Enugu then.
Then they don't see it as Yoruba issue, but 'our' issues.
Unlike if such thing should happen now.

How many Yoruba men can do that for issue relating to Igbos.

Answer again: Nil.

I am not saying Yorubas are bad or anything like that, No, but they are hardly outspoken in the mist of oppression.

Their mouth and brain functions better when thing are normal and as soon as they are pressed down, they most times find it hard to rise to the occasion.

omooba969:
Wow...interesting!

@Op, I appreciate your effort in trying to clear the air as per the charges against Nnamdi Kanu. I also agree that it is a case that is poorly prepared just as it is badly presented.

However, your argument has some defects with regards to your defence of Nnamdi Kanu's position.

Firstly, we need to agree that there's no smoke without a fire. Nnamdi has only managed to land himself in a dangerous trouble because the secession bid was poorly planned & badly managed.

Not to deviate from the subject matter, Nnamdi's proclamations on his Radio Biafra are tantamount to incitement of violence & hatred which has the tendency of 'disturbing the peace' . I am open to what the provision of the law is with regards to 'disturbing the peace'. To say that he has the right to freedom of speech or expression, is to say that I(as a xtian) can go into a mosque and scream that Jesus is the only way. You know that my freedom of speech or expression has the tendency to cause wahala(disturbing the peace). This is how it all started in Rwanda(1994)...remember?

Secondly, for Nnamdi to clearly state that PMB is Bokoharam without concrete evidence is also tantamount to 'defamation of character' . In your submission, you mentioned that it holds no water(paraphrasing your statement) but you certainly know what Libel means.

Nnamdi Kanu's choice of words in his broadcast on Radio Biafra are not those attributed to a genuine freedom fighter that he purports to be, even agitating for a nation-state not yet born while he is still a subject under the extant law of our dear Nigeria. I don't think you have an idea of the gravity of his actions because they can be described as an act or instance of open revolt against a constituted government. This is a kind of behaviour inadvertently aimed at destabilizing the polity.

There are many other points I can argue here but I prefer to keep it short.

yes.... But, that does not include the treason charge, the Judge will just throw away this treason charge because it's lack merit. Let's look at it this way, for the fact that I said I will shot u does not mean that I have killed u, even if someone killed u, the prosecuting counsel has to still prove it that it's actually Me that killed u and that comes with evidence..... The court don't operate on they said this or they said that.