•  Author:  Ugochinyere Onyechere

•  Editor: Prince Richmond C. Amadi

•  Re-tweet: @umuchiukwu-writ 

•   Date: 4th March 2017

Analyzing the present ruling of Justice Binta Nyako on the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, it looks amateur and prevaricates. It has reinstated the value for good governance and at the same time shown the incompetence of the Nigerian so called judges. To be realistic about the issue, one must understand the ruling is not justifiable; though we are surprised at the first positive step taken by the judge who has been under pressures to decline her reputations. But if we must be honest, she must set the records straight. The case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is exceedingly above the normal thoughts of individuals, and anyone handling it must be informed that the world is watching at its bits. Diplomatic exercises should be conducted because Biafrans are no longer blind; as it militate the effectiveness of the rulings on the charges against Nnamdi Kanu.
On 1st March 2017, presiding Justice Binta Nyako ruled out 6(six) count charges among 11(eleven) charges leveled against him. These charges ruled out includes (3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11) relates to management of the unlawful organization, intention to manufacture a bomb, improper importation of a radio transmitter. In striking out the count on the management of the unlawful organization, the court held that the prosecution had failed to show that IPOB was either unlawful, unregistered or had been prescribed. Count 3 which was struck out alleged that leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and others were managing unlawful society which is punishable under Section 63 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Count six alleged that Mazi Benjamin Madubugwu who is the third defendant accepted and kept a container housing a radio transmitter known as TRAM 50L, with the knowledge that the said radio transmitter was to be used for radio broadcasts and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 63 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Count 9 alleges that Onwudiwe Chidiebere who is the second defendant and the National Coordinator of IPOB knowingly committed an act preparatory to an act of terrorism by making materials to be used against the Nigerian Security operatives carrying out their unlawful duties. Without evidence to prove these allegations, pressing justice Binta struck out these charges, maintaining that the case lacks merit; since the prosecutors have no evidence. The Nigerian government lost this battle since they couldn’t provide any pro-evidence to the charges they lay claims to; perambulating without any case study.

Justice Binta Nyako had fallen at the skeptical defamatory issues agog. Remanding Mazi Nnamdi Kanu after proclaiming his management lawful is awkward; should be properly annexed to avoid jeopardy and taking charge of criminality unknown. Other counts left are alleged conspiracy to commit a treasonable felony, treasonable felony, and publication of defamatory matter, improper importation of goods and illegal possession of firearms. Knowingly to a properly trained lawyer that treasonable felony is not possibly committed by an individual. IPOB is now proclaimed lawful; as a matter of fact, they are legal including her activities.

You have declared her legal further stating that the society can do whatever they want to because they are well disciplined and accustomed. The same person on the other way round is accusing them of a treasonable felony and some other charges. The defendant in question is not a member of any political party, nor interested in the government that charged him treason. What an ironical ruling? I don’t fancy this ignorant ruling; believing the fact that this ruling is not anyhow amusing. By all alacrity Mazi Nnamdi Kanu shouldn’t have taken back to the prison; he deserves an immediate release, hence IPOB was declared lawful. 

In all ways imaginable, that intake gathers great impunity, which should shield him from all other crimes. How can someone operating in a lawful society cringe to all activities in the society become a felony convicted? This is a question answerable to Binta Nyako. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu never had an interest in Nigeria; if he did, he won’t at the same time clamoring for a Biafran nation. He is therefore nowhere to be convictions of treason. If they can retrace their thinking ability, let it be known that Nnamdi Kanu has gone through injustices. 

The Nigerian security operatives should be explaining certain things here; they killed innocent people, alleging that they are terrorists. Now it has been cleared that IPOB is lawful, they should be made to face all punishments of the offense of murdering innocent people. Rather they are taking it the other way. I opine that Justice Binta takes the leading step by making sure that she releases Nnamdi Kanu; or better still reverse her rulings, since it’s impossible to declare someone lawful and accuse that same person of treason.

Publisher: Udeagha Obasi 

Share To:



0 comments so far,add yours