A human rights lawyer, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has accused the Nigerian government of hiding under the “facade’ of justice to persecute the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu.
Chidera, in a statement issued in Owerri, Imo State capital on Sunday, said Kanu is being subjected to political persecution.
The lawyer, a member of Kanu’s legal team, spoke amid the ongoing calls for the release of the Biafra agitator. An activist, Omoyele Sowore, has announced plans to lead a protest march to the Presidential Villa to demand Kanu’s release.
However, there are also calls that the IPOB leader’s matter should be settled by the court and not through a political solution. In the statement titled ‘Demolishing the Facade: Why “Justice, Not Politics” Is Really Code for Persecuting Nnamdi Kanu’, Chidera faulted a recent publication which stated that “Justice, not politics, must decide Nnamdi Kanu’s fate”.
He said, “The article, Justice, Not Politics, Must Decide Nnamdi Kanu’s Fate’ claims to defend fairness and the rule of law. But on closer reading, it is neither fair nor factual. Beneath its moral tone lies a misleading narrative that excuses government lawlessness, distorts established facts, and turns a blind eye to repeated judicial pronouncements that have already discharged and acquitted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. What it calls “justice” is, in truth, the continuation of a political persecution that has long violated Nigeria’s Constitution and international law.”
The lawyer, while arguing that the Nigerian government has no evidence to sustain the terrorism charges against Kanu, said IPOB was not responsible for the sit-at-home in the South-East.
According to him, IPOB had publicly discontinued the sit-at-home policy before those he described as criminals hijacked it.
The statement added, “The Sit-at-Home Myth: A False Link to Kanu and IPOB:
The article’s first sleight of hand is its effort to blame Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) for the Monday “sit-at-home” actions that have disrupted life in the South-East. This claim is factually wrong. The truth is that the IPOB leadership officially ended the sit-at-home policy years ago and has since repeatedly condemned and disowned its continuation. The group’s Directorate of State and its spokespersons have publicly declared that the exercise has nothing to do with IPOB or Kanu. They have consistently told the public that those still enforcing sit-at-home are criminal opportunists exploiting Kanu’s name to extort and terrorize innocent people.
“Even while in solitary confinement, Kanu himself issued handwritten directives in 2023 through his lawyers, ordering a complete stop to any sit-at-home actions and warning those behind it to desist. He emphasized that the practice only harms the South-East economy and discredits the genuine agitation for self-determination.
“It is therefore dishonest to keep linking Kanu or IPOB to a phenomenon that both have repeatedly denounced and repudiated. The persistence of violence in the South-East owes more to state failure, the lucrative insecurity business by politicians, and unaddressed grievances than to any instruction from Kanu.”
Faulting the argument that Kanu’s case should be decided by the court, rather than through a political solution, Chidera said, “Swift Trials” or Endless Persecution? The claim that Kanu’s fate should be “left to the courts” sounds reasonable—until one examines what has actually happened in those courts. Kanu’s ordeal is not an example of due process but a glaring abuse of it. First, his kidnap and transfer from Kenya in June 2021 was unlawful. Kenyan courts have since ruled that he was illegally abducted and extraordinarily renditioned, not extradited. Nigeria’s own Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal have both declared the rendition unconstitutional.
“In October 2022, the Court of Appeal in Abuja discharged and acquitted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, holding that his rendition stripped Nigerian courts of jurisdiction to try him. That judgment remains binding, valid, and irreversible under Nigerian law. The Supreme Court, in its controversial December 2023 ruling, did not set aside the acquittal—it merely remitted the case for “trial,” a move that constitutional lawyers have rightly described as per incuriam (made in error). By law, once a person has been discharged and acquitted, they cannot be tried again for the same offence. Doing so violates Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy.
“The continued “trial” before Justice James Omotosho in Abuja therefore has no constitutional basis. It is a violation of both the Nigerian Constitution and binding appellate authority. Keeping Kanu in detention despite these judgments mocks the rule of law and turns justice into a political instrument.”
Condemning what he described as “the Double Standards of impunity”, the lawyer faulted the comparison of Kanu’s case with known terrorists like Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau.
“They try to equate Kanu’s case with that of violent actors like Boko Haram’s Abubakar Shekau or militant leaders like Henry Okah and Sunday Igboho, calling for “consistency.” But this comparison collapses under scrutiny. Kanu’s offence was speech, not violence. He led a non-violent movement seeking a referendum—an idea that, whether one agrees with it or not, is protected under both the Nigerian Constitution and international covenants like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria domesticated in 1983.
“Meanwhile, known warlords and terrorists in other parts of the country have often been granted amnesty, compensation, and reintegration. The government’s selective zeal in prosecuting only South-Eastern agitators while pardoning or negotiating with armed killers exposes the ethnic and political bias at play. This is not justice; it is vengeance disguised as law.”
Chidera further urged the Nigerian government and all stakeholders to uphold real justice in Kanu’s case.
Emphasizing on the “Real Meaning of Justice”, Chidera said, “Justice is not achieved by slogans. It means obeying court orders, respecting constitutional safeguards, and applying the law equally to all citizens. Every major court that has heard Kanu’s case has affirmed that his rights were violated, that he was unlawfully renditioned, and that he should be released. The government’s refusal to comply with these rulings is what undermines justice—not the courts, not Kanu, and not IPOB.
“If “justice” truly means fairness, then it demands one thing: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s immediate and unconditional release in compliance with existing judgments. Continuing to detain and re-try him is not a legal process—it is political persecution that offends both Nigeria’s Constitution and her conscience.
“When Law Becomes Politics, the People Lose. When commentators say “let justice decide,” they must first ask whether justice is being allowed to function at all. In Kanu’s case, the courts have spoken. The Constitution is clear. The continued detention of a man who has been discharged and acquitted is not law enforcement—it is lawbreaking by the state itself.”
According to him, “Until Nigeria confronts this hypocrisy and frees Kanu, the cry for “justice” will remain hollow rhetoric masking political control. The true path forward is simple: respect the rule of law, obey the appellate judgment, and stop criminalizing legitimate dissent. Only then can justice cease to be a tool of persecution and become a promise of equality.”
