Idam Accuses Authorities of Selective Injustice Against Nnamdi Kanu and Biafra Agitators

Activist lawyer Maduabuchi Idam has criticized what he described as selective injustice against Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and other Biafra agitators.

Idam’s remarks followed a statement from the presidency suggesting that Kanu’s lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, should be sanctioned for subjudice over his involvement in the Free Nnamdi Kanu protest.

In a statement on Tuesday, Idam defended Ejimakor, stressing that he retains the constitutional right to express his views on national issues, including matters affecting him, such as Kanu’s trial.

“The protest was a massive success. The collective disillusionment against the selective injustice meted out to Mr. Nnamdi Kanu and the entire Biafra agitators has been unanimously echoed across ethnic divides,” the statement read.

“For the first time in the history of the Biafra agitation, well-meaning Nigerians from various ethnic backgrounds have openly identified with Mr. Kanu and his struggle.”

Idam noted that the government’s attempt to sanction Ejimakor is a misuse of power: “On the Presidency’s statement that Kanu’s counsel should be sanctioned for sub judice, I must state clearly that Mr. Ejimakor was an Igbo man, a Nigerian, and a lawyer before becoming Mr. Kanu’s counsel. Therefore, he is clothed with the constitutional right to express his opinion on any national issue, provided he does not draw conclusions for the court or pass judgment on pending matters.

It is most disappointing that a government with little regard for the rule of law is quick to identify which citizen should be sanctioned for sub judice. The state must refrain from weaponizing its powers against free speech.”

Idam further argued that the government’s focus on sanctions rather than addressing the issues raised by the protest is counterproductive: “The protest has undoubtedly succeeded and will continue to have a positive impact on the state. Yet, rather than addressing the core issues raised, the government appears more eager to find who to sanction instead of doing the needful.

The question that begs for an answer is: Who is actually benefiting from the continued detention of Mr. Kanu, especially considering that his prolonged incarceration cannot possibly outweigh the public interest served by releasing him? The state must act wisely and release him forthwith, rather than further inflaming the polity.”