Nnamdi Kanu: Nigeria’s Constitution Opposes The Case Against Nnamdi – Aloy Ejimakor
Lawyer Aloy Ejimakor, representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the imprisoned leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra, has revealed how Nigerian law backed the secessionist in a treason criminal case brought by the federal government.
In a press conference on Monday at the Federal High Court Maitama in Abuja, where Kanu’s trial was set to resume, Ejimakor stated that “no Nigerian may be tried for any offense that is not supported by the law in the country.”
In Nigeria’s constitution, the “African Chattered of Human and People’s Rights, Ratification and Enforcement Act,” which is found in chapter A-9 of the Federation of Nigeria’s legislation, provides for the right to self-determination.
He pointed out that, under Article 1 of the same chapter, the government was expected to help citizens in the exercise of their constitutional rights.
Let’s be clear: we’re talking about a particular trial here. We’ve established that nothing can be built on top of nothing. It has been asserted in the applications filed by the counsel for the four other defendants that the primary allegation of “treasonable felony” is not supported by any Nigerian laws. It is explicitly stated in the Nigerian constitution.
According to the country’s established laws, no Nigerian can be tried for an offense that is not sanctioned by them.
‘The African Chattered of Human and People’s Rights, Ratification and Enforcement Act,’ which is included in Chapter A-9 of the Federal Laws of Nigeria, is another law in this country. It was ratified and enforced in 2003.
According to Article 20 of that chapter, all Nigerians have the right to self-determination without any reservations whatsoever. Although I believe the Attorney General’s Office is aware of this, I’m not sure they are.
The Nigerian government, according to article 1, must take all necessary steps to help citizens of the country in exercising their rights without interference.
In his words, “The rejection of bail and the postponing of the trial are two options that we are examining.”