In this special interview with TVC News, Human right lawyer Inibehe effiong exposes more legal angles on the recent IPOB Proscription move by the federal Government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeV9JzI9m2Q

There is an ongoing judicial process against the self-acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu. Once a dispute has been submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction for determination, parties cannot go behind the court to settle the dispute, save for an out of court settlement between the disputing parties.

The Federal Government has the right to seek the revocation of the bail of Nnamdi Kanu as it has done. The trial Court is empowered by Sections 169 and 184 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 to reconsider and revoke his bail, and issue a bench warrant for his arrest if it is shown that he has breached the terms of his bail.

If Nnamdi Kanu has committed further offenses during the pendency of the subsisting criminal charges against him at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the federal government as the prosecution is at liberty to either amend the existing information (charge) to incorporate the new offenses by increasing the counts or to file a fresh charge against Kanu.

We should not foreclose dialogue as a panacea to resolving the Biafran agitation. This agitation is symptomatic of fundamental defects in the Nigerian state. We cannot solve our structural and existential problems by denying their existence.

Before you castigate and or deride me for advocating for dialogue as a panacea to resolving the Biafran agitation, keep sentiments first and reason objectively. Some of us cannot be bullied.

People have said that Nnamdi Kanu is not above the law. That is correct. Nobody is or should be above the law. However, I am appalled by our selective insistence on the application of the Rule of Law.

Isokay

But if,