The leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,’s case has put Nigeria’s judiciary’s bravery and independence to the ultimate test. So far, the process has raised fundamental concerns about Nigeria’s foundation and constitutionality, as well as the justice system’s honesty and impartiality.
We will examine the issues raised by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case and its implications for the Nigerian judiciary and state as a whole in this article.
In October 2015, the IPOB leader was first detained and charged with treasonable felony. After the bloody military invasion of his home in Afara-Ukwu, Ibeku, Abia State, he failed to appear in court for his trial and was declared a fugitive. He was later granted bail in April 2017, but the terms of his bail were later changed, and he was declared a fugitive. In collaboration with their Kenyan counterparts, the Nigerian secret police again kidnapped Kanu in Kenya in June 2021, illegally transferring him back to Nigeria to stand trial.
The supporters of Kanu have claimed that he is being persecuted for his political views and his support for the secession of Biafra from Nigeria during this trial. The IPOB leader, on the other hand, is accused of inciting violence and destabilizing the country by the Nigerian government. As a consequence of this, the rulings of competent courts in favor of Kanu have been flagrantly ignored by the government.
Fundamental questions have been raised as a result of the government’s refusal to comply with court orders and the judiciary’s equal lack of action; ranging from Nigeria’s constitutional foundation to the independence of the judiciary and respect for the rule of law. It has also brought to light the cracks in the fragile unity of the nation and the need for a political system that is more inclusive and equitable.
The judiciary’s independence is one of the most crucial tenets of any democratic society. The judiciary is supposed to be impartial and free from outside pressure or influence, and its decisions should be based solely on the law and the evidence in court.
The Nigerian judicial system has been put to the test by this one Mazi Nnamdi Kanu case, which has put all of the aforementioned qualities of a good judge to the test. The government has accused the judiciary of being biased in Kanu’s favor, while Kanu’s supporters have alleged that the government is putting pressure on the judiciary to convict their leader. The judiciary, on the other hand, has not always upheld its claimed impartiality and independence from the executive. Concerns have been expressed regarding the legal system’s integrity. For instance, the initial conditions of Kanu’s bail were widely regarded as excessive and punitive, and his abduction in June 2021 was carried out in a contentious manner that raised questions about due process; however, the judiciary is insufficient to appropriately intervene in the matter. Both of these instances are examples of this.
Another fundamental principle of any democratic society is the rule of law. It indicates that everyone is subject to the same laws and legal procedures, regardless of status or position. Additionally, it indicates that the government must uphold the law and respect individual rights. The IPOB leader’s case, on the other hand, has caused such widespread unrest due to the Nigerian government’s deliberate disregard for its own laws. The government has been criticized by Kanu’s supporters for ignoring due process and violating Kanu’s rights.
The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu case, among others, has also sparked fundamental inquiries regarding Nigeria’s constitutional foundations. The British colonial government established the nation in 1914, and ever since, it has struggled to maintain its forced unity and stability. Despite this, the issue of secession has been a contentious one in Nigeria, where various ethnic groups and regions have sought greater autonomy or even independence. The case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his support for Biafra’s secession only served to highlight the country’s deep divisions and the absence of an inclusive and equitable political system.
Speech, association, and the right to self-determination are protected by the Nigerian Constitution. Additionally, there is a fine line between exercising these rights and threatening national security or inciting violence. The IPOB, which is led by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has stayed within this boundary and has continued to demand that the government of Nigeria address the fundamental grievances of marginalized groups and find ways to address their concerns within the framework of the constitution.
The case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has significant ramifications for the Nigerian state and the judiciary due to these and other facts. The rule of law and the judiciary’s independence must be upheld by the judiciary. Within the framework of the constitution, the judiciary must fulfill its constitutional responsibility and pressure the administrative branch of the Nigerian government to free Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and address the underlying grievances of marginalized groups.
Nigeria’s commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights principles will be tested in the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu case.
Written and edited by Chidiebere Obulose for Family Writers Press International by Ogah C. S. Maduabuchi