AG’s Stance on Nnamdi Kanu’s Case
The Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi’s recent remarks that only the courts can decide the fate of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, have brought renewed focus on one of Nigeria’s most sensitive legal cases.
While addressing the press on the first anniversary of President Tinubu’s administration, Fagbemi drew a clear distinction between Kanu’s terrorism-related charges and the case against activist Omoyele Sowore, whose charges were discontinued by the AGF’s office earlier this year.
By asserting that Kanu’s alleged offenses are too “difficult” to be unilaterally decided and must be left to the judiciary, Fagbemi has echoed the stance that due process must be strictly adhered to, regardless of the political pressures surrounding this highly contentious matter.
On its face, the AGF’s position reflects a laudable commitment to upholding the rule of law and preserving the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary branches. No citizen, no matter how controversial or polarizing, should be denied their constitutionally enshrined right to a fair trial solely at the discretion of political authorities.
However, Kanu’s drawn-out legal saga has also exposed some of the systemic flaws and constraints hampering Nigeria’s justice delivery mechanism when high-stakes issues of ethnic nationalities and secessionist ideologies are involved. The IPOB leader’s protracted detention and delays in his trial have provided ample fodder for his sympathizers to claim persecution and injustice.
Walking this legal tightrope between enforcing anti-terror laws on the one hand and being seen as even-handed in minority rights on the other is an unenviable challenge for the Tinubu administration. A mishandling could escalate simmering tensions in the Southeast region and renewal of cessationist agitations that had only recently started de-escalating.
Ultimately, as Fagbemi stated, the judicial process must be allowed to reach its conclusion in Kanu’s case through a free and fair hearing, unencumbered by political pressures from any side. Credible judicial autonomy is vital to preserve Nigeria’s territorial integrity while protecting all citizens’ rights, regardless of affiliations.
However, the federal government must also be prepared to urgently initiate confidence-building measures and inclusive dialogue to address any lingering ethnic grievances, should the legal process inevitably leave some constituencies dissatisfied with the outcome in Kanu’s case.
Preserving Nigeria’s stability requires steadfast adherence to constitutional democracy and the rule of law. But it also necessitates a comprehensive socio-political strategy to harmonize the country’s diversity through mutual understanding and reforms, rather than confrontation. The Nnamdi Kanu’s Case saga underscores just how delicately this balance must be calibrated for a durable resolution.
Reference
Only the court can decide Nnamdi Kanu’s fate on terrorism charges – Fagbemi published in TheNation