Connect with us

News

News Analysis: Answers To Some Pertinent Questions Regarding The Recent Move By The IPOB Leader To Defend Self In Court

Published

on

 

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra a movement regarded by the federal government as terrorist organization , Nnamdi Kanu, is set to open his defence in his ongoing decade-old terrorism trial, listing several top political figures and retired military chiefs as witnesses he intends to call.

In a fresh motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, dated October 20, the IPOB leader listed the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike; Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu; and former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai (retd.), among his witnesses.

In the defence notice personally signed him, Kanu informed the court of his intention to call 23 witnesses, divided into two categories — “ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable witnesses.”

Among the “vital and compellable witnesses” are Wike, Sanwo-Olu, Buratai, alongside s former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (retd.); the governors of Lagos and Imo states, Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Hope Uzodinma, respectively.

Others listed include the Minister of Works, David Umahi; a former Abia State Governor, Okezie Ikpeazu; and the immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN).

Also named are the former Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Bichi; the immediate past Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency, Ahmed Abubakar; and several other unnamed individuals

According to the motion, Kanu intends to rely on Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011 to compel the appearance of those he considers “vital and compellable” witnesses.

He also asked the court to grant a 90-day window to enable him to conclude his defence, pledging to testify personally and provide sworn statements from voluntary witnesses to support his case.

“I will testify on my own behalf, providing a sworn account of the facts, denying the allegations, and explaining the political context of my statements and actions,” Kanu told the court.

“It will interest the honourable court and the general public that justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to have been done.”

Consequently, the IPOB leader asked his legal team to step aside. Based on his position, all the senior advocates in the team led by Kanu Agabi (SAN), announced their decision to withdraw their continuous participation in the case.

Agabi announced that the team of Senior Advocates of Nigeria in the matter, comprising Onyechi Ikpeazu, Paul Erokoro, Joseph Akubo and Emeka Etiaba, explained that the reason for their withdrawal “is because the defendant has taken this case back from us and we respect that.”
The Questions:

Advert

We often hear officers uttering the statement below to culprits whenever they come for an arrest:

“You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”

Based on the above statements which officers usually utter, many have been posing the questions below to know the actual context of the law, and the Nigerian Tracker News desk have answers provided to them:

1.Is Nnamdi Kanu a Lawyer?

No, Nnamdi Kanu is not a lawyer.
He did not study or practice law. Nnamdi Kanu studied Geography at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), although the specific years of his attendance are not widely publicized. Nnamdi Kanu is primarily known as a political activist and the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). His background is in media and activism, not law.

2. Why Did He Seek to Defend Himself?

Nnamdi Kanu’s decision to defend himself in court is a strategic and principled choice, rooted in several factors including:

Fundamental Right: As detailed below, the right to self-representation is a foundational legal right in many jurisdictions, including Nigeria. He is simply exercising this right.

Political Statement and Platform: For Kanu, the courtroom is not just a legal arena but a political one. By representing himself, he can directly address the court, the media, and his supporters, framing his defense as a political struggle against the Nigerian state. He can use the opportunity to articulate his ideology and challenge the legitimacy of the charges and the court itself.

Lack of Faith in the Process: Kanu and his supporters have repeatedly expressed a lack of confidence in the fairness of the Nigerian judicial process regarding his case.

3. Is There a Provision in the Constitution for a Non-Lawyer to Defend Themselves?

Yes, absolutely. This is a crucial and universally recognized legal right.

The provision is explicitly stated in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution guarantees every person charged with a criminal offense the right “to defend himself in person or by legal practitioners of his own choice.”

This means the law is clear: an accused person has two options:

1.To be represented by a lawyer of their choosing (which is the most common and often the most prudent course of action).

2. To represent themselves (a concept known as “pro se” representation in many legal systems).

Important Nuances and the Judge’s Role

While the right to self-representation is fundamental, it is not absolute and comes with important caveats that the judge must manage:

Knowing and Intelligent Waiver: The court must ensure that the accused person is making this choice knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The judge will typically question the defendant (in this case, Kanu) to ensure they understand the severe risks of forgoing professional legal counsel.

Standby Counsel: Even when a defendant chooses self-representation, the judge often appoints a lawyer as “standby counsel.” This lawyer remains in the background to provide legal advice if the defendant asks for it and to step in if the proceedings become too disruptive or if the defendant’s self-representation threatens the integrity of the trial.

The embattled activist was first arrested in Lagos in 2015 for treasonable felony. On 28 of April, 2017, Kanu was released from prison on bail. However, in June 2021, he was re-arrested through a collaboration between the Kenyan Interpol and that of Nigeria. Since then, he has been in the custody of the Department of State Security (DSS).

News

President Tinubu Adds Days to Working Vacation, Returns at Weekend

Published

on

 

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will return to Nigeria this weekend after extending his working vacation in Europe by a few days, the State House announced Monday evening.

The President departed Nigeria on August 30 for London to begin the working vacation, which was initially expected to last three weeks. According to a statement issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the President has since relocated to Paris, France, where he held meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron and businessman Mr. Vincent Bollore, whose media group includes Canal+, Multichoice, and Universal Music Group.

Despite his absence, the statement emphasized that President Tinubu has remained actively engaged with domestic affairs, particularly directing an independent panel to investigate the deaths of 37 illegal miners in Minna following their detention by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps.

Advert

The President has delegated Vice President Kashim Shettima to represent him at official functions. However, Vice President Shettima departed Abuja on September 20 for New York to attend the 81st United Nations General Assembly. In his absence, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, will continue to represent the President at official engagements.

On the political front, the statement noted that Senator Abubakar Yari, Director-General of the Presidential Campaign Council (PCC), has been leading consultations with prominent traditional rulers across the country alongside other notable party leaders.

The extension comes as the President’s initial three-week vacation timeline elapsed, with the State House confirming he will now return to the country at the weekend.

Continue Reading

News

Court Adjourns El-Rufai’s N1 billion Suit Against ICPC, AGF, Police

Published

on

 

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Monday adjourned a N1 billion rights suit filed by former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and others until October 27 for a definite hearing.

Others named in the suit are the Inspector-General (IG) of police and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the second and third respondents, respectively.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the suit to allow counsel to the former governor, Akinyemi Aremu, to respond to the counter affidavit filed by the AGF opposing the claims.

When the case was called, Mr Aremu informed the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing.

Counsel for the AGF, Maimuna Lami-Shiru, however, told the court that the AGF had filed a counter affidavit.

She prayed the court for leave to move their motion seeking an extension of time to deem their counter affidavit as being properly filed and served.

El-Rufai’s lawyer, Mr Aremu; Ezekiel Rimamsomte, who appeared for the IG, and the ICPC counsel did not oppose the application, and the judge granted it as prayed.

Mrs Abdulmalik then adjourned the case until October 27 for a definite hearing.

Earlier in the suit, the ex-governor sued the ICPC, the chief magistrate at the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja, the IG, and the AGF as first to fourth respondents, respectively.

He, however, dropped the name of the magistrate from the case following his inability to specify the name of the magistrate who was sued as the second respondent, after the judge made the observation.

Mr El-Rufai is, therefore, demanding N1 billion in damages against ICPC, the IG and the AGF.

Advert

In an originating motion on notice marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, dated and filed February 20 by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, the former governor sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2:00 p.m. by the ICPC and IG amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

He said it violated the dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

Mr El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

He sought an order directing the first and third respondents (ICPC and IG) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

He also sought an order awarding N1,000,000,000.00 (one billion naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages, among others.

In its counter affidavit, the ICPC said it received a petition against Mr El-Rufai and, acting on it, commenced an investigation that led to the search at his residence.

It argued that its operatives acted under a valid search warrant issued on February 18 and executed on February 19 between 1:37 p.m. and 3:56 p.m. at 12 Mambilla Street, Asokoro, Abuja.

The commission said its officials were accompanied by Nigeria Police Force personnel and that the exercise was witnessed by Mr El-Rufai’s wife, Hadiza El-Rufai, and his son, Mohammed El-Rufai.

The ICPC, which urged the court to dismiss the suit, listed the items allegedly recovered from the residence.

The police, also in its counter affidavit deposed to by Ewa Anthony, argued that it had the statutory power to detect, arrest, investigate and prosecute offenders.

It argued that the search at Mr El-Rufai’s residence was carried out pursuant to a search warrant issued by a competent court of law.

The anti-graft agency disagreed with the ex-governor, insisting the search warrant was a genuine court order.

It said its officers who carried out the operation complied with all applicable legal procedures in executing the search warrant.

According to the police, the applicant is trying to use the honourable court to shield him from the security investigation and prosecution in court.

It, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.

Continue Reading

News

Tinubu Becomes First Post-1999 Nigerian President to Miss Three Consecutive UNGAs

Published

on

 

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

President Bola Tinubu has again delegated Vice President Kashim Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, marking the third consecutive year he has personally skipped the global summit since taking office in 2023.

The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, said on Monday that Tinubu is “currently on annual leave,” describing the delegation to Shettima as “neither unusual nor a diminution of the country’s diplomatic standing”. Idris insisted Shettima “carries the full mandate of the President and the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and will deliver the national statement.

However, the explanation has done little to quell public scrutiny. Tinubu last personally attended UNGA in September 2023 for the 78th session, shortly after his inauguration. He has since been absent from the 79th session in 2024, the 80th in 2025, and now the 81st in 2026—a pattern unmatched by any Nigerian president since the return of democracy in 1999.

Advert

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, through his media aide Phrank Shaibu, demanded a “full explanation,” arguing that three consecutive absences “could no longer be dismissed as coincidence or routine delegation” but constituted “a pattern of presidential evasion”. Atiku questioned whether Tinubu’s “documented history with United States law-enforcement agencies has become a burden on Nigeria’s foreign relations”.

At the centre of the opposition’s claim is a long-standing U.S. forfeiture case in which $460,000 was held in an account linked to Tinubu, after American authorities alleged the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in prohibited financial transactions. Atiku also questioned why the administration spent up to $9 million on American lobbyists to improve Nigeria’s standing in Washington while the President repeatedly stays away from New York.

The Presidency has not directly addressed the drug-case allegation. A ruling party chieftain, Olatunbosun Oyintiloye, dismissed the claims as “political propaganda,” noting that no U.S. court has reopened a criminal case or pronounced Tinubu guilty of drug trafficking.

Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jimoh Ibrahim, had earlier announced that Tinubu would attend and that a seat had been secured for him near U.S. President Donald Trump. That seat remained empty.

Continue Reading

Trending