Members of the family of the leader, the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, have rejected the Supreme Court’s verdict on his terrorism case.
Kanu’s younger brother, Emma, told journalists that the court verdict was unfortunate.
Emma Kanu, speaking on behalf of the family, conveyed their disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision. He argued that the verdict was unjust and raised questions about the fairness of the legal process. The family believes that Nnamdi Kanu’s activities are rooted in a genuine desire for self-determination rather than acts of terrorism, as the court has concluded.
Emma Kanu emphasized that his brother has been a vocal advocate for the rights and aspirations of the Igbo people, and the family perceives the legal actions against him as an attempt to suppress a legitimate quest for self-determination.
The Supreme Court’s ruling and the subsequent reaction from Nnamdi Kanu’s family have sparked discussions and debates across the nation. Supporters of Kanu and the Biafran cause have rallied behind the family, expressing solidarity and questioning the credibility of the legal proceedings.
Critics, on the other hand, argue that the court’s decision reflects a commitment to maintaining national unity and addressing issues that could potentially threaten the country’s stability. The divide in public opinion highlights the complex nature of the Biafran secessionist movement and the challenges faced by the Nigerian government in managing regional aspirations.
While the family’s reaction is emotional and reflects their commitment to Nnamdi Kanu’s cause, legal experts may analyze the Supreme Court’s judgment within the context of existing laws. The terrorism charges against Kanu likely involve a detailed examination of his actions and statements, and the court’s decision may be based on its interpretation of the evidence presented during the trial.
It’s essential to recognize that legal processes are complex and judgments are made based on established legal frameworks. However, the perception of justice is subjective, and public sentiment can play a significant role in shaping the narrative surrounding a case.
He said no family member is happy about the verdict.
He said, “It is extremely unfortunate that the Supreme Court could come up with such a judgment.
“This case began with the Federal High Court, which of course lacked the jurisdiction to try Nnamdi Kanu from here, through the High Court to the Appeal Court, which discharged and acquitted him, and then a stay of execution was filed against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and it was granted on civil proceedings, which is very wrong. Legally, it is wrong. But it was granted.
“I believe, there is no due diligence in this case and for those who have been handling the matter before now, there was no due diligence.
“Now taking the case back again and having acknowledged in the court today by the judge that delivered this judgment that the way and manner Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was brought back to Nigeria was illegal. He agreed with the Appeal Court that it was extra-ordinary rendition. He said the invasion of his house was also illegal and that the security agents acted irresponsibly.
“He said also that the revocation of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s bail was wrong and that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place, but he concluded by saying that the appeal by the Federal Government was granted, while the cross-appeal was not allowed, referring the case to square one, that is where we came from, which is the Federal High Court Abuja.
“Bearing in mind that some of the charges have been quashed, which all know was the truth, where are they going to start from? Of course, what is left is a bailable offence which Nnamdi Kanu never committed.
“So, I am yet to understand what is actually playing out, but I can assure that we are not happy and nobody is happy.”
