On Wednesday, the terrorism accusations against Biafra separatist Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB, were questioned by his family.
Kanunta, Kanu’s younger brother, questioned why terrorism was being accused of being Kanu’s crime instead of treason.
He criticized Nigeria’s courts in a post on X, claiming that judges there have disregarded the rule of law.
He wrote: “What is the purpose of “disclosure” in court processes in the Nigerian judiciary? It is very laughable that the zoological Republic of Nigeria and its judges have failed to stick to this rule of law.
“Why did the whole charges against #MaziNnamdikanu change from treason to terrorism?”
After Justice Binta Nyako of the Abuja Federal High Court told Kanunta to permit the trial to begin today or have it postponed sine die, Kanunta asked a follow-up question.
Judge Nyako’s judgment either permits the trial to start or postpones it indefinitely in response to the lead attorney for Kanu’s continuous complaints that his client is not ready for a trial.
Kanu has outlined a number of requirements that had to be fulfilled by the federal government in order for his trial for treasonable charges to begin.
Among them are the requirements that he be transferred from DSS custody to house arrest, have his revoked bond restored, and have unrestricted contact to his attorneys, family, and medical professionals.
Despite Justice Nyako scheduling a hearing for May 20 to rule on the two new applications that Kanu had filed, the defendant angrily opposed to the trial’s beginning.
Judge Nyako directed that the trial begin today in order to go forward, but Kanu vehemently objected, saying that the trial could not take place.
In the ensuing drama, Judge Nyako halted the trial’s procedures so that Kanu may decide whether to begin it today or to postpone it indefinitely.
