X-raying the new charges brought against Nnamdi Kanu by Muhammadu Buhari: a dance of shame

X-raying the new charges brought against Nnamdi Kanu by Muhammadu Buhari: a dance of shame 

PRELUDE: The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) having reviewed all the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and the Constitution of Nigeria hereby categorically make the following irrefutable assertions:

1) There is no place in any of the existing laws of Nigeria and the Constitution where the name or title or phrase ”Department of State Services (DSS)” can be found. Therefore, DSS is both illegal and unconstitutional.

2) There is no place in any of the existing laws of Nigeria and the Constitution where the terminology or phrase ”South-East zone” and ”South-South zone” can be found. Therefore, the terminology or phrase ”South-East zone” and ”South-South zone” are both illegal and unconstitutional. 

3) Count One and Count Two of the new charges are invalid and must be thrown out because there is no such Law as “Criminal Code Act CAP. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2014” and there is no Law known as “Criminal Code Act CAP. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2000”

X-RAYING THE NEW CHARGES: 

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) carried out a forensic analysis of the trumped-up charges brought against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and exposed the nullity and futility of the exercise which has many gaping holes. After studying our well-researched deconstruction of the frivolous charges, Muhammadu Buhari has now brought new charges and subsequently increased the charges against Nnamdi Kanu from three (3) to six (6). In our tradition, we are here to deconstruct and destroy these weak and error-laden charges.

CHARGE #1

“Conspiracy to commit a treasonable felony, contrary to section 516 of the Criminal Code Act Cap. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2014 and punishable under the same section of the Act.”

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

That you Nnamdi Kanu, ‘M’, Onwudiwe Chidiebere ‘M’ Banjamin Madubugwu, ‘M’, David Nwawuisi, ‘M’ and others now at large on diverse dates in 2014 and 2015 in Nigeria and London, United Kingdom, did conspire amongst yourselves to broadcast on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu and other areas within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, preparations being made by you and others at large, for states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue States to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to constituting same into a Republic of Biafra and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2000”

IPOB Comments on Charge #1:

Buhari has found out that it is unheard of in law that only one person will be charged for treasonable felony, hence he has now incorporated three more people to get out of the tight corner to which he found himself. We want to remind that entire humanity that each time the illegal and unconstitutional DSS wants to lose the case against Nnamdi Kanu they will introduce a new defendant. Recall that on the 18th of October Nnamdi Kanu was arraigned alone despite the fact that David Nwawuisi was already in jail and held without trial since July 2015. When their frivolous charges of criminal intimidation collapsed at the Magistrates Court, they quickly charged Mazi Nnamdi Kanu with terrorism before the sagacious Justice A. F. A. Ademola and that too was dismissed. Now that they are faced with the option of releasing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, they have introduced Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi as well as Chidiebere Onwudiwe and charged all with Conspiracy to commit Treasonable Felony. These new set of charges is the fourth alteration of charges that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has encountered. 

Also in this charge, it is not clear on who was where regarding the accused persons and the locations mentioned. In addition, the use of the term “others now at large” renders the charge a mere conjecture or guesswork because Buhari is expected to know those being accused by name. Using the term “others now at large” is akin to operating a blank cheque and as we observed in our previous forensic analysis. These “others now at large” could be Barack Obama, David Cameron, Theresa May, Bill Clinton, Prof. Osibanjo, Atiku Abubakar, Justice Binta Nyako, Mamman Daura, and even Aisha Buhari.

We also note that there is no specificity in date of commission of the crime and this renders the charge baseless. We posit that this time around, Buhari has made the charges more dismissive by using the term “diverse dates in 2014 and 2015”. To make his case arguably, Buhari must specify the date or dates of the commission of the crime. In the prelude, we have already mentioned that the term “South-East” and South-South” are illegal and unconstitutional.

Finally, we want to inform Buhari that the law he cited in “Particulars of Offence” is in conflict with the law cited in the “Charge.”. This alone renders this charge invalid. 

CHARGE #2

“Treasonable felony, contrary to Section 41 (c) of the Criminal Code Act Cap. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2014 and punishable under the same section of the Act.“

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

“That you Nnamdi Kanu ‘M‘ being the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on diverse dates in 2014 and 2015 in London, United Kingdom, did broadcast on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu and other areas within the jusrisdcition of the is Honourable Court, preparations being made by you and others now at large, for states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue States to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to constituting same into a Republicof Biafra and you committed an offence punishable under Section 41(c) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. 

IPOB Comments on Charge #2:

Buhari has failed here to be specific on actual dates of commission of the crime of treasonable felony by using the term “diverse dates in 2014 and 2015“, which renders the accusation as lacking in specificity and typical of conjectures and beer-parlour guess-work. We want Buhari to tell the world if broadcasting in London makes the broadcast under the jurisdiction of the Abuja Court or is it being monitored in Enugu that makes a broadcast that was made in London now within the jurisdiction of Abuja Court. Again we ask Buhari, who are these “others now at large“? How can you use the term “others now at large“ in a high-profile case such as treasonable felony without identifying the specific individuals involved thereby making it unbelievable and giving rooms for significant margins of error? Under the excuse of “others now at large“, many people can be wrongly termed as those who allegedly worked with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. It is possible that Yusuf Buhari, Aminah Buhari, Zarah Buhari, and Ibrahim Babangida are among these “others now at large“. 

Just as noted in the prelude, the illegality and unconstitutionality of South-East and South-South has already been established. Buhari is economical in words and should tell the world what “preparations” that are being made by Nnamdi Kanu and these “others now at large“ because the charge is not explanatory enough. 

We want to remind Buhari that exercising the rights to self-determination is not equivalent to levying war against Nigeria. Broadcasting from London is not equivalent to levying war against Nigeria. It must be recalled that Buhari sponsored Radio Chanji in Northern part of Nigeria during the last Presidential Election in which he promised that he would make blood of Nigerians to flow on the streets if he loses the election.

CHARGE #3

“Managing an unlawful society, punishable under Section 63 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.“

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

“That you Nnamdi Kanu, ‘M‘, Onwudiwe Chidiebere ‘M‘ and others at large, on or about the year 2012 at London, United Kingdom and South East as well as South South parts of Nigeria within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court managed an unlawful society, to wit: the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), pursuant to your secessionist agenda, with intent to bringing into being, a Republic of Biafra out of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 63 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.“

IPOB Comments on Charge #3:

Is Buhari aware that IPOB is duly registered in the United Kingdom? If IPOB is truly registered in the United Kingdom, then what makes it an unlawful society? So Buhari is telling the world that Biafrans under the aegis of IPOB exerting their rights to self-determination as enshrined in the various declarations of the United Nations and the African Union is constituting an unlawful society? We can also extrapolate that Buhari has committed the same crime because on the 29th of September 205, Buhari made the following statement at the United General Assembly in New York: “The international community has come to pin its hopes on resolving the Palestinian issue through the two – states solution which recognises the legitimate right of each state to exist in peace and security. The world has no more excuses or reasons to delay the implementation of the long list of Security Council resolutions on this question. Neither do we have the moral right to deny any people their freedom or condemn them indefinitely to occupation and blockade.“

Section-62(2) of CAP C38 L.F. N. 2004 specified conditions under which an organization can be deemed unlawful society, and none of the conditions is against the rights of Indigenous People to self-determination. 

We want to remind Buhari that Biafrans and IPOB exist in every nook and cranny of Nigeria and outside Nigeria. Therefore, it is an insult for Buhari to state that IPOB is managed only in London and in the illegal and unconstitutional South East and South South of Nigeria. We reiterate to Buhari that the right to self-determination is inalienable and irreducible and NOT a secessionist agenda. Buhari should know that inclusion of the term “others now at large“ makes this charge unsustainable and nothing but a mere guess-work because all accused persons must be known and identified and not just referred to as “others now at large“.

CHARGE #4

“Publication of defamatory matter, punishable under Section 375 of the Criminal Cod Act, Cap. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004”

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

“That you, Nnamdi Kanu, on or about the 28th April, 2015 in London, United Kingdom did broadcast on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu, Enugu State and other parts of Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, referred to Major General Muhammadu Buhari, GCON President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a paedophile, a terrorist, and idiot and an embodiment of evil knowing same to be false and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.”

IPOB Comments on Charge #4:

This charge should be dismissed immediately for the following reasons:

1) As at 28th of April, 2015, Retired Major General Muhammadu Buhari was not the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Hence the title and the position ascribed to him was wrong and nullify the charge. If Buhar feels defamed by the alleged defamatory publications, he should sue Nnamdi Kanu in his private capacity because he was a private citizen as at April 28th, 2015.

2) On March 23rd 2015, an online newspaper called “thebreakingtimes” published an article in which it quoted Mrs Sarah Obozuwa, Founder of the Edo Women for Change (EWC), as saying that Aisha Buhari is a victim of childhood rape. Mrs Obozuwa asserted that Buhari (at 47 years of age) had sex with Aisha when she was just nine years old. This statement was made more than one month before the alleged comments of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and there has never been any denial or rebuttal from Buhari and Aisha. 

3) On March 15, 2015, Sheikh Sani Haliru, a founding member of the dreaded jama’aful Ahlul sunna wal Liddawati wal Jihad also referred to as the Boko Haram, publicly confessed that Muhammadu Buhari is the founding father of Boko Haram and this was reported in “Naijaonppint.com” online newspaper. Again, Buhari did not refute this accusation.

4) Buhari has been involved in several incidences of inciting violence duraing and after elections. Currently, there is a case of against Buhari in The Hague for killing innocent Nigerians after he lost the 2011 elections. Therefore, it is not out of place to conclude that by his acts of commission and omission he is evil and his governance/leadership style since December 31, 1983 can be correctly defined as idiotic.

CHARGE #5

“Improper importation of goods contrary to Section 47(1 (a) (i) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap. C45 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under the same section of the Act.”

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

That you, Nnamdi Kanu, between the month of March and April, 2015, imported into Nigeira a Radio Transmitter known as TRAM 50L and kept it in your house at Ubulusiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area (LGA) of Anambra State, Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 47(1) (a) (i) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap. C45 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

IPOB Comments on Charge #5:

First of all, Nnamdi Kanu does not have a house in Ubulusiuzor in Ihiala LGA, hence this nullifies the charge outright. Secondly, what is the proof that the duty on the said item was not paid for before it was removed from the wharf? Also, was this item forcefully or stealthily removed from the wharf considering the checks and balances and security networks supposedly existing in the wharf? On what day was this item removed without paying the requisite duty and who were the officers on duty on that day, especially those in charge of security and at the exit gates? When exactly did this crime take place because the commission of a crime must take place on a specific date and not the range of months being bandied about on the charge sheet?

CHARGE #6

“Improper importation of goods contrary to Section 47(2) (a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap. C45 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under the same section of the Act.”

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

“That you, Nnamdi Kanu, between the months of March and April, 2015 imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulusiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, a Radio Transmitter known as TRAM 50L concealed in a container of used household items which you declared as used household items, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 47 (2) (a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap. C45 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under the same section of the Act.”

IPOB Comments on Charge #6:

The first question here is; when was this discovery made? Who was the Customs Officer on duty who cleared this container? Was thorough inspection not part of the process required to clear goods from Nigerian Ports and who inspected this container? What is the proof that the said item was not properly cleared under a competent Customs Official? Was this offence part of the reason why Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was abducted by the illegal and unconstitutional DSS on October 14, 2015? 

Signed

Barrister Emma Nmezu 

Dr. Clifford Chukwuemeka Iroanya

Spokespersons for IPOB