What Would Life Be Like As a Minority in Kanu’s Biafra? by Reno Omokri

Recently, my perspective on Nigeria changed. I have never supported any separatist or secessionist agenda. However, I have supported and defended the right of any Nigerian to express himself and associate freely. It does not matter to me where such a person comes from. When the Buhari administration moved against Ibrahim Zakzaky and the Shiites, I was the first person (not one of the first) to defend them. After defending them publicly myself, I called the then President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, and begged him to issue a statement calling for an end to the killings of Shiites. He told me that though it was an Islamic affair, nevertheless, because of his fondness for me, he would speak in support, and he did. I have similarly championed the causes of oppressed persons or people from every part of Nigeria. As much as is humanly possible, I have refused to be partial in my advocacy. In the last three years, I have visited 40 nations on my own dime and time, for the cause of #FreeLeahSharibu, seeking freedom for a Christian girl from Borno. I have not collected a dime from anyone and if anyone knows anyone who has given me a penny, then they should publicly expose me. Before Nnamdi Kanu was arrested, I did not know who he was. I just defended his right to freedom of expression and association. Various Igbo leaders called me privately to thank me. It would be wrong to mention their names, because of the challenges of the moment. When Kanu was rearrested, I called a British government official and got the facts. I was the first (not one of the first. The first) to reveal that he was arrested in Kenya, and not in The UK. After I released this information, the media ran with it. Yesterday, a former Presidential candidate sent me a tape of Nnamdi Kanu dissolving the UK branch of IPOB and tongue lashing the members of IPOB UK. He told them to hand over IPOB money in their possession. He then said that he suspected that the British Secret service was running IPOB UK. I was shocked and refused to believe what I heard, until this ex Presidential candidate from the South pointed me to an IPOB channel where this same audio was broadcast. So I published it on my page. I did not add or edit or alter the voice. I released it as is. Given that that broadcast was released earlier this year (I was told it was first broadcast in March of 2021, though I am not 100% sure) and Nnamdi Kanu was arrested so soon after (in June), I asked if that altercation could have led to Kanu being betrayed by his members in the UK. The result was that various persons, who claimed to be members of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra descended on my page and insulted me, attacked me and accused me of collecting money from Buhari. (Would Buhari even give me money? If Buhari will give me anything, it is more likely to be a letter bomb). They said Nnamdi Kanu can insult anyone he liked and I should leave him alone. A certain Northerner, who has been on my page attacking me for what he had previously called my “love for the Igbo”, now asked a question. He said ‘so you people have forgotten when this man was fighting for you so soon’? And so I went into deep thought. If Nnamdi Kanu eventually gets Biafra and I am a minority in that Biafra, what would be my fate? Would I be able to express myself? Would I have the freedoms for which I myself have been fighting for Nnamdi Kanu to get for the last five years? Would I be able to hold sensitive positions? I am not Yoruba, but because of me, these members of IPOB insulted the Yoruba (why do people always think I am Yoruba?). I was called ‘ewu Yoruba’. Somebody even threatened to kill me if I ever stepped into Onitsha (the same Onitsha where I donated money and raised millions for victims of the 2019 Onitsha Market Fire?). These people in their hundreds descended on me with a consistent refrain, that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is the supreme leader of the Igbos and he could insult his members if he chose and no one could question him. And that prompted a paradigm shift in my consciousness. If you have been following the dailies, you would have read one or two stories planted by the Buhari administration in the papers of how they have been tracing Kanu and monitoring his movements for two years. The stories claimed that they were able to get to him through members of the Eastern Security Network that they had captured. Then a few days ago, they released a video testimony of one captured ESN member, by name Emeoyiri Uzorma Benjamin, that has now gone viral, in which the young man claimed that Kanu had given them instructions to kill policemen and soldiers, as well as their fellow Igbos. He sensationally claimed that Kanu instructed them to bury one of his lieutenants, Nwaokike Kayinayo Andy, AKA Ikonso with 2000 human heads. Even more sensationally, he alleged that Mr. Kanu gave directives to them to kill young girls, who they used for fetish charms. Now, it is not possible to say if this fellow is telling the truth, or half truths or lies. However, from his testimony, or account of the inside workings of IPOB/ESN, and the broadcasts which I listened to, and which is also available on some IPOB social media accounts, we see that Nnamdi Kanu had almost total authority over IPOB. All this time, I was thinking that, though Nnamdi Kanu showed extreme indiscretion by going to a country like Kenya, which is notorious for extrajudicially extraditing people to regimes seeking them (the Turkish government did exactly the same thing the Nigerian government did with Kanu to Selahaddin Gulen, a Turkish dissident that was captured by Turkey’s intelligence from Nairobi. In that instance, Kenya first denied complicity, then promised to investigate the event. It happened in 2016. Kenya is still ‘investigating’ that event), that he nevertheless must have been betrayed by someone in his organisation, who tipped the Nigerian intelligence agencies that Kanu was headed to Kenya. But my experience with Mr. Kanu’s supporters made me have a rethink. With the way they treat him as though he is infallible, could it not be more likely that there was nobody within the organisation bold enough to advise Mr. Kanu not to travel to Kenya, because to do so, or to counter him in any way, would have brought upon such a person weighty consequences. And then I began thinking about the ‘dot in a circle’ statement by General Buhari. I had criticised Buhari for making that comment. It is most irresponsible of him to have described the Igbo as such. It showed his malevolent mindset towards some citizens of his own country, and he should apologise. However, on further introspection, I began to cast my mind to statements Nnamdi Kanu had made in his many broadcasts which I only watched just yesterday. He unacceptably insults Black people as being less intelligent than other races (how can a Black person say such things? Is that not self hatred?). He attacks Yoruba churches, pastors and media (what is a Yoruba church? Honestly, I had never heard of a Yoruba church until I heard that word from Kanu. I thought all churches belonged to God through Christ). You can imagine if you are Yoruba and sympathetic to the plight of the Igbo, and you listen to all the bile from Kanu about your ethnic nationality, how would you look if you continue to defend him to your kinsmen? Then you listen to some of the even more outrageous things he has said about Northerners (Igbos, your enemy is Buhari. Your enemies are not the Hausa or Fulani. Don’t mix up the two). I cannot even repeat them here. Looking back to those broadcasts, it looks to me that it is Nnamdi Kanu himself who made IPOB (not the Igbos as Buhari claims) a dot in a circle. He made no attempts to be persuasive. He did not even try to win hearts. He made no pretence of anything but contempt to anyone who was not part of his Biafra. Even though I had always thought that Odili, Amaechi and Wike and their people in Rivers state are Igbos, I now understand, but do not agree with Wike’s claims that they are not Igbos. Who would want to be a minority in a country ruled by Kanu? Tufiakwa! You speak your mind and you may be shot on the spot! To be honest, I had never listened to these broadcasts by Nnamdi Kanu until they were brought to my attention by this Southern Presidential candidate. I was clueless about their existence. In fact, I felt a bit naive. I felt like a fool! Anyone who has been following me for the last six years would have known how much of my time and money I have devoted to defending, advocating for and promoting the cause of the Igbos. However, having watched for the first time these videos where Nnamdi Kanu called Black people wicked (I am Black, but I don’t think I am wicked), and where he described Igbos who refuse to support IPOB as evil, I am flummoxed! However, the one that shocked me the most was his statement that (and this is an exact quote), “If you are attending a Yoruba church, you should be ashamed of yourself. Anyone who attends a church headed by a Yoruba pastor is an idiot. A complete fool. An imbecile. I have no time for them. They are worse than Boko Haram. They are very, very foolish. If your pastor is Yoruba, you are not fit to be a human being.” And the funniest thing is that the pastor who provoked him into making that statement is from Auchi. He is not even Yoruba. No wonder they think I am Yoruba. To these lot, any Southerner West of the Niger is Yoruba. They have a majority mindset that is not minority friendly AT ALL. Even more disturbing is that this Auchi pastor, who Nnamdi Kanu calls Yoruba, and used to generalise all Yoruba pastors, was summoned by DSS in December of 2016, and asked to explain why he did a video calling for Kanu’s release. Who fights those who fight for them? How did I miss these broadcasts? Have I been too focused on Buhari to the extent that I was blindsided? Is this the fellow I have been defending? I am a minority. My late father was a minority. He went to Sokoto as a Youth Corp Member in 1975, and became Nigeria’s youngest Director of Public Prosecution and Nigeria’s youngest judge (at the time), and was elevated to the Court of Appeal, all from old Sokoto. Would that be possible in Kanu’s Biafra? And when he was interviewed in 2020 by Dr. Damages (I did not even know until the same Southern former Presidential candidate sent me the video), and given an opportunity to denounce his previous statements against the Yoruba, Nnamdi Kanu doubled down on it and said as follows: “Most of the difficulties we have been having have always come from these Yoruba pastors.” Then he went on to say in that same 2020 interview as follows: “Yoruba Pentecostalism is the reason why Fulanis are invading us today.” Where is the connection between Pentecostal churches and killer herdsmen? I was stunned. This video was recorded last year. How come I never saw it. I checked on YouTube and only 27,000 people had seen it. How can I be against Isa Pantami for saying “We are all happy whenever unbelievers are being killed” and then tolerate these statements from Nnamdi Kanu? If I do, it will make me a hypocrite. And while I mistakenly may sometimes be hypocritical, I will not be deliberately hypocritical. Everything I have said here is the truth. It is on video and audio. If you do not like what I have written, then jejely unfollow me. We are obviously not on the same wavelength and I am not about to change in order to make you like me.

I wasn’t forced to join APC, says Matawalle

The Governor of Zamfara State, Bello Matawalle, yesterday said he defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to strengthen political unity in his state. The governor’s media aide, Yusuf Idris, who stated this in a statement, also debunked media reports that the governor was forced to join the APC to stop killings in the state. “It is a known fact that Governor Matawalle is one of the leaders in the country that speaks wisdom on all matters and he joined the APC in order to strengthen political unity in the state for the purpose of bringing more development to his people,” Mr Idris said. The governor’s spokesperson added that the defection was also due to “the upper hands he (the governor) had been enjoying from President Muhammadu Buhari and the APC high command on all matters concerning the state.” Mr Idris said President Buhari and the APC governors had been sympathetic to the people of the state in trying times, adding that these encouraged the governor to reciprocate the concern and respect given. “The governor’s mission for joining the ruling party was nothing more than that. Any other report is mischievous and the handiwork of those diversionary characters that have remained vehemently opposed to the defection to APC by Governor Matawalle.” Mr Matawalle joined APC last week. He joined the ruling party with all the federal and state lawmakers in Zamfara but his Deputy, Mahdi Aliyu, and a state lawmaker, Kabiru Yahaya, opted to remain in the PDP.

Just In: State Police Bill scales 2nd reading at House of Reps

ABUJA—A Bill for an Act to provide for state police in Nigeria, on Tuesday, scaled second reading at the House of Representatives. Onofiok Luke (PDP, Akwa Ibom) who sponsored the bill, said it was aimed at removing the police from exclusive list to concurrent list, towards enhancing the security of lives and property in the country. He said it would also help to reduce crimes at the grassroots, by complementing the role of the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies in crime control. “We have had some security challenges and some states have had to set up state security apparatus to fill in the gap,” Luke said. This, he said, was due to an upsurge in crime following the current security challenges in the country, which appeared to have overwhelmed the police. In his contribution, Tobi Ukechukwu (PDP, Enugu) said the creation of state police was germane to the survival of the country. “About an hour ago, we observed a minute silence in honour of those killed in Kaduna. “Children have been taken captive and we have had a situation in this country that ordinarily this issue of state police should have addressed,” he said. READ ALSO: INSECURITY: 36 Assembly Speakers demand State Police, Community Policing He said the bill was a patriotic move by the sponsor, stressing that the exclusive list needed to shed weight and this would ensure a well-secured country. “There is no state that does not run its own vigilance group as at now, but they are lacking the power to bear arms, arrest and prosecute. “We cannot be pretending that everything is okay, it is not a joke that schools are closed in Kaduna,” he said. Speaker of the House, Femi Gbajabiamila, put the bill to a voice vote and it unanimously adopted and referred to the House Ad Hoc Committee on the review of 1999 Constitution. Vanguard

No alteration done to Electoral Act Amendment Bill -Gbajabiamila

Speaker, House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila, says there is no alteration in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill as being speculated in some quarters. Gbajabiamila said this when he reacted to a point on matters of privilege by Rep Ugouna Ozurigbo (APC-Imo) at Tuesday’s plenary in Abuja. Ozurigbo had claimed that he received information that the House Committee on Electoral Matters, chaired by Rep Aisha Duku (APC-Gombe) had altered the bill. “A number of Nigerians, particularly in my constituency, have been calling me to express their concerns about possible alteration to the electoral bill. “I am a member of the committee, I don’t know the information going around where they said that we carefully amended Section 50 sub-section 2 of the Electoral Bill. “That the agreed electronically transmitted election results have been changed to become manually transmitted,” he said The Speaker, however, said that the speculation was unfounded. “I really don’t want to speak on a report that has not yet been submitted to the House,” he said. He said that the committee had been given an assignment that would be submitted to the House once the job is finished. “I have asked the chairman of the committee and she said that nothing of such has been done,” he said. Gnajabiamila said that the report would be laid before the House proceeds on its recess on July 14. Meanwhile, four lawmakers from Zamafara have defected to the All Progressives Congress from the Peoples Democratic Party. They included Bello Hassan, Ahmed Bakura, Suleiman Gumi and Ahmed Shehu. This is coming barely a week after two lawmakers from the state also defected from the PDP to the APC. Their detection has increased the number of APC lawmakers from the state to six, leaving only one lawmaker who vowed not to leave the PDP. (NAN)

Southern Governors Forum: Again, Cross River, Anambra states governors absent By Olasunkanmi Akoni

Governors of the Southern States of Nigeria on Monday met in Lagos to deliberate on matters affecting the region just as the governors of Cross River and Anambra states were again from the crucial gathering. The Governors, in the meeting, reiterated the call for true federalism and devolution of powers to states. Governor, Ondo State and Chairman, Southern Governors’ Forum, Arakunrin Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, stated these among others while reading communique issues at end of the meeting of the Southern Governors of Nigeria, held at the State House, Alausa, Ikeja. Governors present include: Delta-Ifeayin Okowa, Rivers-Nyensom Wike, Ogun-Dapo Abiodun, Lagos State, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Osun-Gboyega Oyetola, Akwa Ibom- Emmanuel Udom, Ekiti Kayode Fayemi, Bayelsa-Douye Diri, Oyo- Seyi Makinde, Enugu – Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi Represented, include: Edo, deputy Governor, Philip Shuaibu, Imo Deputy Governor, Placid Njokwu, Abia State, Oko Chukwu, Eboyin, Kelechi Igwe While those absent are: Anambra and the Anambra States. The Governors, in a communique at the end of the meeting read by Akeredolu, at about 4 pm, resolved: “The Southern Governors Forum at the end of the meeting held on Monday, 5th July 2021 reviewed the situation in the Country and focused on the current security situation, constitutional amendment, Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB). “Rising from the meeting, the Forum agreed on the following: Re-affirmed their commitment to the unity of Nigeria on the pillars of equity, fairness, justice, progress and peaceful co-existence between and amongst its people. “The Forum reiterates its commitment to the politics of equity, fairness and unanimously agrees that the presidency of Nigeria be rotated between Southern and Northern Nigeria and resolved that the next president of Nigeria should emerge from the Southern Region. “On security, the forum reviewed the security situation in the country and commends security operatives for their relentless efforts in restoring security and safety and commiserates with families and loved ones of those who have fallen in the line of duty; “Re-emphasised the need for State Police; “Resolved that if for any reason security institutions need to undertake an operation in any state, the Chief Security Officer of the State must be duly informed. “The forum frowns at selective criminal administration of Justice and resolved that arrests should be made within the ambit of the Law and fundamental human rights; Set a timeline of Wednesday, 1st September 2021 for the promulgation of the anti-open grazing law in all Member States; and “Resolved that Funds deducted from the Federation Account for the Nigeria Police Security Trust Fund should be distributed among the States and Federal Government to combat security challenges. Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) Law: The Forum commends the National Assembly for the progress made in the passage of the PIB. The Forum rejects the proposed 3% and supports the 5% share of the oil revenue to the host community as recommended by the House of Representatives. “The forum also rejects the proposed 30 per cent share of profit for the exploration of oil and gas in the basins. “However, the forum rejects the ownership structure of the proposed Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC). The Forum disagrees that the company be vested in the Federal Ministry of Finance but should be held in trust by Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA) since all tiers of Government have stakes in that vehicle. “In order to consolidate our democracy and strengthen the Electoral process, the Southern Governors’ Forum rejects the removal of the Electronic transmission of the election result from the electoral act; and also rejects the confirmation of exclusive jurisdiction in pre-election matters on the Federal High Court. “The Forum unanimously chose Lagos State as its permanent secretariat and appreciated the Governor of Lagos State for the wonderful hosting of this meeting while commending him for his good work in the State.” Vanguard

The Nnamdi Kanu extradition puzzle by ADEBISI ONANUGA.

Did the Federal Government break local or international law in extraditing Nnamdi Kanu? Lawyers untie the legal knot surrounding the matter, writes ADEBISI ONANUGA. Last Tuesday, the Federal Government announced that the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, had been re-arrested abroad and returned to Nigeria to resume his terrorism trial from which he allegedly absconded four years ago. Kanu was apprehended on Sunday, June 27, according to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN. “He has been brought back to Nigeria to continue facing trial after disappearing while on bail regarding the 11-count charge against him,” Malami said at a news conference in Abuja. Kanu was also accused of instigating violence in the Southeast that resulted in the loss of lives and property of civilians, military, para-military, the police and destruction of civil institutions and symbols of authorities. Since his re-arrest, there have been speculations about where and how he was nabbed. Information and Culture Minister, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, who also spoke with newsmen, was evasive about the information. “What we can tell you is that the re-arrest was made possible by the diligent efforts of our security and intelligence agencies, in collaboration with countries with which we have obligations. We continue to respect and honour the obligations,” Mohammed said. He, however, explained that government and security and intelligence agencies had been on the IPOB leader’s trail for over two years before he was intercepted and whisked back home. Mohammed disclosed that the forensic investigation carried out so far had revealed a treasure trove of information from Kanu and his collaborators. “While the investigation continues, we assure you that none of the collaborators, irrespective of their standing in the society, will be spared. “They will all face the full wrath of the law for their activities that challenge our nation’s sovereignty and threaten its unity. “No one, no matter how highly placed, is bigger than the country,’’ he said. The minister also assured that Kanu would get a fair trial. Mystery of Kanu’s re-arrest Kanu fled the country in September 2017, after an invasion of his home by the military in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, Abia State. The Nigerian government obtained a court order on September 20, 2017, to designate IPOB as a terrorist group and to proscribe it. He is facing trial before Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of an Abuja High Court, charged with treason, terrorism and illegal possession of firearms, among others. Just as the modus operandi of the intelligence agencies that apprehended Kanu remains a mystery, the country of arrest is also unknown. IPOB believes its leader was arrested in Kenya, But there have been speculations that his arrest and subsequent extradition took place in Prague, capital city of the Czech Republic. Some also said it took place in Ethiopia while others said he was lured to a hotel room in Brazil by a pretty woman and grabbed by Interpol. Our hands are clean, says Kenyan government The Kenyan government denied involvement in the Kanu saga, saying it did not want to be dragged into Nigeria’s internal affairs. Its High Commissioner to Nigeria, Dr. Wilfred Machage described the claim that his country was involved as nothing but “fictional” and “imaginary” and deliberately concocted to fuel antagonism.” “On the case of the alleged arrest in Kenya of Mr Kanu, I wish to categorically state that we are not happy at this ridiculous attempt of dragging the name of Kenya and HE President Uhuru Kenyatta on this matter of arrest and extradition of the self-proclaimed IPOB leader…. “I want to challenge anyone with facts relating to this alleged arrest in Kenya to present those facts. This includes when, where, how and who was particularly involved in the alleged arrest,” Machage said. Read Also: Obsessing over Nnamdi Kanu s extradition, trial Nigeria’s past attempts at extradition The task of extraditing criminal suspects by one country from another country is based on bilateral agreements in most instances. Sometimes, when the strategy involved is defective, the attempt is truncated. The Dikko affair The much-talked about failed attempt to extradite Umaru Dikko from London has been tagged “The Dikko affair”. Dikko was minister of transport in the civilian government run by Shehu Shagari, his brother-in-law, from 1979 until the end of 1983, when the army toppled the administration and installed Major General Muhammadu Buhari as the head of state. He hugged global headlines in 1984 when men said to be from the Israeli secret service Mossad and the military government conspired to kidnap him in a large wooden crate. Dikko was seized outside his house in London, bundled into a van and taken to Stansted Airport, where a Nigerian Boeing 707 cargo aircraft waited to repatriate him to face charges of corruption. His captors handcuffed him, drugged him, and stuffed him in chains into the crate with a doctor by his side maintaining a tube to keep him breathing. The doctor and another of his captors, a diamond trader, were Israelis; the other two, a Nigerian ex-army major and a Tunisian-born shopkeeper. The other men climbed into a second wooden crate. Only when all were awaiting take-off did a telephone call by suspicious British customs officers to the Foreign Office discover that the two crates, each four and a half feet by five and a half in size, did not have diplomatic clearance. Customs officials were told to open the crates in the presence of an official Nigerian government representative. The crates were searched and the men discovered. Dikko was whisked to hospital in Bishop’s Stortford, where he woke up unharmed after remaining unconscious all night, and his captors arrested. The doctor and the shopkeeper were later sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, the Israeli organiser of the snatch to 14 years, and the Nigerian military man to 12 years. The men lost appeals to have their sentences reduced. Neither Nigeria nor Israel ever admitted taking part in the only-just-thwarted effort to avoid the time-consuming process of securing Dikko’s extradition to Nigeria. The Nigerian High commissioner was expelled from Britain and two expatriate British engineers working in Nigeria were accused of stealing an aircraft. They were sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, and, for the next few years, relations between Britain and Nigeria were frosty. The two were freed three years later. Extradition treaties Nigeria is required by treaty with several nations to cooperate in the extradition of criminals. For instance, Nigeria signed an Extradition Treaty with the United States on December 22, 1931. This entered into force on June 24, 1935. Since then Nigeria has extradited several persons to the United States for various reasons ranging from drugs, advance fee fraud, and terrorism-related offences. “On August 28, 2013, a court in Nigeria on the request of the U.S. Embassy ordered the extradition of a man (name withheld) to the US on a federal indictment charging him for providing support to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula by recruiting members to train in Yemen. Extradition laws between Nigeria and other countries Nigeria has extradition treaties with several countries. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Documentation (UNODC) in a publication, “Cases and Materials on Extradition in Nigeria” published 2016 in conjunction with Nigeria, listed such treaties in Appendix 11 in post-independent Nigeria to include: Extradition Treaty between Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates 2016 Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons between the United Kingdom and Nigeria 2014 Extradition Treaty between and South Africa 2005 London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth 2002 Economic Community of West African States Convention on Extradition 1994 176 6. Extradition Treaty among Benin, Ghana, Nigeria and Togo 1984 Exchange of on the inheritance of international rights and obligations between the United Kingdom and Nigeria 1960 Britain seeks clarification The British High Commission in Nigeria last Wednesday said it was seeking clarification from the Federal Government regarding the circumstances of Kanu’s arrest. The IPOB leader is also a British citizen. The Commission spokesperson in Nigeria, Dean Hurlock, stated this in a statement, published by online medium TheCable. Hurlock said the United Kingdom (UK) Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office “stands ready to provide consular assistance” regarding the matter. He added that the UK “would expect any trial or legal proceedings to follow due process” as Kanu’s prosecution reopened. Kanu’s opulence life for probe? The Nigerian government claimed that Kanu lived an opulent lifestyle in exile, suggesting that IPOB was being well-funded locally and internationally. According to Mohammed, Kanu was living “a five-star life across several countries, travelling on chartered private jets, living in luxury apartments and turning out in designer clothes and shoes. Of course, as we all saw, he was wearing an attire made by Fendi, a luxury Italian fashion brand, when he was arrested.” While analysts agreed on the need to unravel those financing Kanu’s activities, they were equally worried about the possible repercussion of the manner he was arrested and extradited. They referenced the foiled attempt to kidnap Dikko out of Britain years ago which damaged political and bilateral relations between Nigeria and the United Kingdom for years. Lawyers’ reaction Has Nigeria breached any law or international treaty in the course of extraditing Kanu to the country? Lawyers versed in international laws and treaties disagreed. They included Seyi Sowemimo, SAN; Dr Fassy Yusuf; 1st Vice President, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), John Aikpokpo-Martins; and activist lawyer, Kabir Akingbolu. Government breached no law – Sowemimo Sowemimo noted that the government was yet to clear the dust on where and how Kanu was arrested whether it was from Prague, Ethiopia, Kenya or Brazil. He argued however that whichever country it is, there was nothing to suggest that the Federal Government violated any law or treaty. He said: “I don’t have a caveat to say that they violated any laws from what we are reading. I think it was the work of Interpol that facilitated it. So, if Interpol was involved, I am not aware of any law that has been breached. “What we have on ground was the fact that there was a case, he was on bail and that he jumped bail. That again may probably undermine whatever claim that he may have to freedom of movement or fundamental rights because that threw a different light on the matter. “I think that, legally, there is not much one can fault without further evidence and if that is to happen, the country from which he (Kanu) was taken from needs to have put it on protest and no country has done that. It is only the political angle that matters as to whether it is wise to adopt that position and whether it is expedient to just allow matters to rest. Now it has gotten to a situation where it could or not generate into crisis because the man represents the feelings of some of them in the Southeast. But legally, I am not aware of any law that has been breached.” Need for caution – Yusuf According to Dr Yusuf, Kanu’s extradition is a legal issue. He, however, noted that government was yet to tell Nigerians how Kanu was extradited, the country from which he was extradited and the procedure adopted in his extradition. Read Also: MASSOB to FG: Nnamdi Kanu’s ordeal will never stop Biafra struggle Noting the “many conspiracy theories on the issue”, Yusuf said: “I think the Federal Government need to tell us how the extradition was done and how it was achieved and we need to know whether what the Federal Government did, breached any international rule of law.” He recalled that Kanu has dual nationality and advised Nigeria to be aware of a diplomatic row with Britain. “Of course, we also know of his connection with Israel being a man that practises Judaism. So, it is up to the government to be logical in the defence of its actions or in the way it goes about its actions because anything that affects us as a people, especially if Nigeria is seen to have breached any international law or protocol, the country will be attracting condemnation globally,” he said. Yusuf advised that Kanu’s case should be handled with caution. “The Federal Government might have succeeded in extraditing him to the country, but the dream of Biafra agitators may not die that easily just like other separatist movements. “I think the Federal Government should find a way of addressing these issues. Importantly, the Federal Government should tell the country, instead of allowing rumours to thrive, the government should tell us. We have the right to know what is happening or what the government has done. “If it is a sting operation or something the government doesn’t want to tell us its secret behind it, then we should still be told where and how.” Yusuf contended that for the government to keep mum over the situation would not do justice to the matter at hand. He added: “Rather than allow rumour mongers, speculators to have a field day, I would want to request the Federal Government to please speak out so that all the speculations could be put to rest and we would know whether there are one or two lessons to be learnt from his extradition.” Fed Govt acted constitutionally – Aikpokpo-Martins Aikpokpo-Martins said any President of Nigeria is constitutionally bound to quell secessionists’ agitations. He said under Nigerian law, self-determination agitations are “simply unconstitutional”. He faulted secessionists’ claim that agitation for self-determination is a fundamental right, noting that Chapter 4 (Fundamental Human Rights guaranteed provisions) of the 1999 Constitution does not include the right to expressions seeking to divide the country. The NBA official who stated this in his personal capacity in a post on his Facebook page titled, STIRRING THE HORNET’S NEST; THE MENS REA began his post by differentiating between the agitations of a former Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo, alias Tompolo on the one hand, and that by Boko Haram, the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) and Igboho, on the other. Defending the government’s actions “strictly based on the law”, Aikpokpo-Martins said: “Let it be known that there is a major difference in the agitation of the Niger Delta militants as led by Tompolo etc to the agitations of Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday Igboho. “Tompolo never agitated for a different country; this is very very significant and must reflect on how he is treated. “Whereas Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday Igboho are agitating to carve different countries out of Nigeria, Tompolo never did that; he is a Nigerian and advocates for justice and equity albeit as a Nigerian and in Nigeria. “Constitutionally, no President (whether he is a Buhari, Nnamdi, Babatunde, Ahmed, Osahon, Wike, Aper etc) worth his job will treat those agitating for self-determination with kid’s gloves; he is constitutionally and legally mandated and obliged to crush such people. “You may mouth fundamental human rights to self-determination etc, but the fact is, the Nigerian constitution described Nigeria as one indivisible country; see Section 2(1) of the 1999 Constitution.” He explained that Buhari took an oath to defend the constitution, “so how can a President who swore to defend the constitution which contained a clause providing for the indivisibility of the country turn around to condone agitations for self-determination, whether by peaceful and or violent agitations, when such agitations are directed at the core of the validity/legitimacy of the constitution he swore to defend?” According to him, such agitations are “simply unconstitutional and the President is constitutionally bound to crush same.” He contended further that Chapter 4 (fundamental human rights guaranteed provisions) of the constitution that many rely on to defend protests, agitations and rallies to demand a division of Nigeria into different countries “did not guarantee such expressions when such expressions or assemblages are directed at the validity and/or legitimacy of the constitution itself ie seeking a divisible Nigeria! “It is a legal, ideological and philosophical absurdity to rely on a constitution to which you seek to destroy to protect a right to destroy the same constitution! “The constitution must inherently and naturally protect and defend itself by denying any person or agitator any right that is inimical to its existence. “So, those agitating to divide Nigeria cannot seek the protection of the constitution; it will not avail them. They can only seek to actualised their demands outside the purview and protection of the 1999 Constitution by whatever means that they deem fit. “The constitution and all organs and authorities that take legitimacy from the constitution will automatically be biased against such agitators, so they should not expect to be granted any benefits as ”Except and until the constitution provides for the right to self-determination, any expression or assemblage where such agitations are made are not only unconstitutional but also treasonable. “So, I urge the agitators for different countries to be carved out of Nigeria to first agitate for the right to self-determination and referendum be included in the constitution. “Then and only then will a President who seeks to crush such agitations be said to be acting unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally and only then too can agitations for Boko Haram Caliphate, Odua Republic and the Biafra Republic be lawful and constitutional.” ‘Kanu’s arrest, extradition have legal implications’ Akingbolu noted that it is a common practice amongst foreign countries to collaborate in the fight against criminality. He said they do this through the instrumentality of security or intelligence agencies of the governments concerned, like Interpol and the likes. Akingbolu argued that under international law or convention, it is not only permissible but also legal and justified. He noted that in the case of Kanu, it was “a tactical and well-orchestrated arrest. This is because there was no way he would have been possibly arrested in the UK, so the government was said to have lured him to enter into a country where the government knows it has a say in terms of cordial international cooperation that can effectively facilitate his arrest and subsequent deportation. And as it turned out, it paid off eventually. “To that extent, the government has not breached or violated any international treaty, law or convention. Therefore, the action cannot reasonably be faulted legally. More so, the country concerned has not complained that Nigeria has breached or trampled over its sovereignty.” He, however, noted that Kanu’s arrest and extradition have legal implications for the country but this depends on the angle from which the government wants to look at it. Akingbolu advised that the arrest “should not be seen by the government as a victory or a kind of feat for which commendation should be expected, because if viewed deeply, beneath the velvet of the vainglorious jubilation are the persistent discordant tunes of acrimony against the government which if left unattended. “Secondly, while away, he has been alleged to be responsible for certain crimes committed by supposed members of IPOB, which, if established, can serve as grounds for further criminal charges and consequent arraignment.” Akingbolu also observed that Kanu’s arrest could spark serious upheavals and protest by his followers to draw government attention to their demands. “It can also encourage the springing up of a lot of militia groups in the country. “So, if the government is jubilating about his arrest, it should also work hard towards designing a system or policies that can help solve or address the agitation of the group.”

Alleged N5.2b fraud: Court remands ex-JAMB Registrar, Ojerinde in prison By Eric Ikhilae,

…To hear bail application July 8 A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered that a former Registrar of the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Professor Lawrence Adedibu Ojerinde be remanded in prison custody. × Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a ruling on Tuesday, ordered that Ojerinde be kept in a correctional facility pending the hearing of his bail application, scheduled for July 8. Justice Egwuatu gave the ruling after Ojerinde, dressed in white native attire, was arraigned on an 18-count charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/97/2021, in which he was accused, among others, of complicity in the diversion of public funds estimated at over N5.2billion. The prosecuting agency – the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission(ICPC) – said Ojerinde committed the alleged offences, contained in the charge, between from when he served as the Registrar of the National Examination Council (NECO), though his years in JAMB, till 2021. Ojerinde pleaded not guilty when the charge was read to him. His lawyer, Peter Olorunnishola (SAN) subsequently informed the court about a bail application he filed and served on the prosecution. Olorunnishola however sought time to react to the counter-affidavit filed by lawyer to the prosecution, Ebenezer Shogunle, which the defence lawyer said was served on him late. The defence lawyer told the court his client was also standing trial before a High Court in Minna (Niger State) in a similar case, which would be heard on Wednesday. He said Ojerinde had been arraigned and granted bail by the court in Minna, in respect of which he was made to surrender his international passport. Olorunnishoa said since the hearing in the case before the court in Minna was scheduled for the next day, the court should grant the client temporary bail to enable him to attend the proceedings in Niger State and return on a later date for his bail application. Relying on Section 165(1() of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) that allows the court the discretion to grant bail, Olorunnishola argued that the purpose of bail was to ensure a defendant attends court and not punished or keep such a defendant in government’s confinement. READ ALSO: I am leaving JAMB better than I met it- Ojerinde He said his client was ready to stand trial and would not run away. He prayed the court to allow the defendant to remain on the bail earlier granted him. Olorunishola told the court earlier that he had written the ICPC Chairman and sought an audience, with the possibility of a plea-bargain, but was told his client must appear in court. He added that the ICPC gave the impression that it was no longer interested in a plea-bargain. Responding, Shogunle acknowledged filing a counter-affidavit against the bail application, which he had served on the defence. Shogunle did not object to Olorunnishola’s request for time to react to the counter-affidavit but opposed the defence lawyer’s application that his client be allowed to remain on the administrative bail, earlier granted him by the ICPC pending the hearing of his bail application. Shogunle said no law supports the defence’s request for a temporary bail. He insisted that Ojerinde be remanded pending the hearing of his bail application. On the defence lawyer’s claim that Ojerinde was billed to appear before the court in Minna the next day, Shogunle said the state has the means to move him around. Ruling, Justice Egwuatu ordered that the defendant be remanded in a correctional facility and adjourned till July 8 for a hearing of his bail application.