Two citizens of the Federal Republic, Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu are being accused by the Federal Government of terrorist activities with support from foreign sources. Igboho, an agitator for self determin-ation for his Yoruba ethnic group, is alleged to receive more than N127 million toward his activities from, according to Attorney General and Minster of Justice Abubakar Malami (SAN), ‘‘a federal lawmaker in the National Assembly’’ and of financial dealings with a person linked and convicted in Saudi Arabia of funding terrorism.

Kanu and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the group he leads, are accused of offences against the state and people of Nigeria. The findings of the 24-person Presidential Ad-hoc Committee that investigated the activities of the IPOB has, according to Malami, cited a litany of offences against the agitator for self-determination for his Igbo people.

Malami  said  recently that Nnamdi Kanu ‘ has  accomplices in Nigeria and abroad….state and non-state actors  who are aiding and facilitating his campaign…; that  he used ‘online Radio Biafra to instigate violence and incite members of IPOB to commit violent attacks against civil and democratic  institutions…'

That he ‘seized’ the EndSARS protest to further his goal, that on Kanu’s ‘instigative directives’ ‘members of IPOB/ESN carried out massive attacks on democratic institutions…with a view to hampering  democratic process in Nigeria.’ Not done, the Committee ascribed the killing of 175 security personnel, traditional rulers and most recently Dr. Chike Akunyuli and others to Kanu and his group.  

The point must be quickly made that the compilers of these offences are all employees in the ministries and agencies of the Federal Government that accuses Kanu and will prosecute, judge and punish him. There is no neutral and independent opinion within the ad-hoc committee. None!

Having said this, since the case is in court, it would be reasonable to expect that Mr. Malami should forward these findings to the prosecutor to build his case against such enfant terrible and his group.

The federal chief law officer and senior advocate of Nigeria chose to go to the court of public opinion, or put differently, resort to media trial, seemingly in order to bias the mind of the public against the accused. But it is the court, not the public that, on the facts before it, will determine the case.  

The question legitimately arises then if, in a matter that is sub judice, this senior lawyer is not acting in contempt of the judicial process.  This is important a national matter that even has international dimension, as alleged by the attorney general.

The federal attorney general claimed IPOB enjoys the backing of state and non-state entities; he mentioned no names, provided no evidence. And so, these lacking, for so serious an allegation of foreign inter-ference that threatens the stability, peace & security of  a sovereign Nigeria,  all  he could say was to tepidly ‘call on  these countries to desist from aiding the sub-versive acts by Kanu and IPOB against the state of Nigeria and its people.’ That does not speak for a confident government of a serious country at all.

Mr. Malami reportedly justified going public with his list of accusations because ‘Nigerians, in public interest have to be carried along as (the matter) relates to the protection of their rights and properties’ One should think that if this public officer is so public- interest minded, those alleged state and non-state backers of Kanu and IPOB should be disclosed to the public too.

The public’s right to know in a transparent government requires, nay demands, that the truth and the whole truth be revealed.  Full disclosure is required in a court of law, as Malami should know.
For, partial truth is worthless and denies the full information from which sound judgement can be derived.  In any case, his allegations remain one side of the matter. In a duly constituted court of justice, the other party is entitled to be heard. 

By engaging in media trial of accused persons kept in incarceration therefore, Malami has not helped the cause of fair hearing. He should know better that in this case of national focus, the Nigerian &international publics are most interested in a fair and open trial.  Chief Chekwas Okorie rightly cautioned that since the allegation raised in the report of the ad-hoc committee are so ‘weighty’, ‘let the court do its work and not conduct trial by public statements.’

Besides that Malami and the Federal Government he represents should desist from trial by public opinion,  it must be said too that raising these yet to be substantiated allegations do nothing to lower tension in the land. Indeed they serve to raise it.

Truth be told, too many sections of Nigeria are thoroughly unhappy, for different reasons, with the state of their country under the present government.  Agitation for self-determination which, by the way, is universally recognised as a right, is not necessarily a pleasant choice; it is foisted upon them by the nigh intolerable situation that prevails in the land. Igboho and Kanu merely symbolise this feeling of group exclusion and are courageous enough to do something about it.

All said the Igboho, Kanu and similar national issues are political in nature. Rather than resort to tortuously legalistic and cudgel-wielding approach that can only make an already bad matter worse, government is advised to see and to address politically, these troubles in the land. It is the wise course to take.

"...Truth be told, too many sections of Nigeria are thoroughly unhappy, for different reasons, with the state of their country under the present government. 

Agitation for self-determination which, by the way, is universally recognised as a right, is not necessarily a pleasant choice; it is foisted upon them by the nigh intolerable situation that prevails in the land.

Igboho and Kanu merely symbolise this feeling of group exclusion and are courageous enough to do something about it....."

“The government, particularly the Mini-stry of Justice has consistently manifested aversion or lack of genuine enthusiasm towards bringing suspected terrorists from the northern part of Nigeria to justice but it is always overzealous to charge other persons from the South with certain phantom allegations of terrorism and the Justice Ministry is busy conjuring up half-baked allegations to hang it on the necks of either Nnamdi kanu or Sunday igboho.

A good example will suffice; Nnamdi kanu versus certain elements and divisive leaders of Miyetti Allah that have been quoted in the media for supporting the activities of the armed Fulani headsmen who are terrorists.

“These same leaders of Miyetti Allah who are in Nigeria have made treasonable statements even challenging the authorities of the state governments that have carried out the legal passage of laws on the anti-open grazing legislation and have not only made threats but carried out their threats like in Ondo State.

“The National President of Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association threatened fire and brimstone in the Southeast of Nigeria just because people rejected Ruga Fulani initiative of the president.

“A few months after these threats were published in the media, and still on the internet as I speak, there were sporadic attacks targeting strategic national security institutions & assets while the govt both at the Southeast and centre have refused to conduct proper forensic investigation but have hastily blamed Eastern Security Network and the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra. IPOB denied.”

yorubaigboi1:
I wonder what will happen to all these people if Buhari finally leaves office. Shey Dem no say one day one day, Dem go retire to their houses