A lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has criticised the Nigerian Bar Association over what he described as its failure to intervene in the case of detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, accused the NBA of remaining silent over what he called violations of Kanu’s rights and broader concerns about Nigeria’s criminal justice system.
The lawyer made the allegations in a letter addressed to the leadership of the NBA and copied to the International Bar Association.
His criticism came as the NBA held its annual conference in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, with thousands of legal practitioners reportedly attending the event.
Chidera accused the association of focusing on its convention while failing to address what he considered serious legal issues arising from Kanu’s case.
He argued that the NBA should be concerned about the wider implications of the case regardless of individual opinions about Kanu or his political activities.
According to him, the association has a responsibility to defend the rule of law whenever government institutions or other authorities are accused of acting outside established legal procedures.
Chidera particularly referred to the October 13, 2022, judgment of the Court of Appeal, which discharged Kanu and set aside the charges against him.
He argued that the Nigerian government did not file an appeal or obtain a stay of execution for eight days after the judgment, during which period, according to him, Kanu should have been released.
The lawyer questioned the subsequent use of a stay of execution obtained through a civil proceeding to prevent the effect of the criminal appellate judgment.
He said the circumstances surrounding the stay should concern legal practitioners because of the implications for the enforcement of decisions issued by superior courts.
Chidera also recalled that Kanu had spent about 14 months in detention without a valid charge after being brought back to Nigeria through an extraordinary rendition.
RELATED STORIES
Related Posts
He argued that the circumstances of the detention raised constitutional and legal questions that should have attracted stronger attention from the legal profession.
The lawyer further criticised the NBA over contempt proceedings involving the Department of State Services and former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.
He alleged that the relevant authorities failed to comply with the Court of Appeal’s decision but were not adequately sanctioned.
Chidera argued that the legal profession should speak out whenever a court order is allegedly disobeyed, regardless of the identity of the person involved or the political sensitivity of the case.
He said the central issue was not whether lawyers or the NBA supported Kanu, but whether the same legal standards applied to him as to every other citizen.
The lawyer raised questions about whether an appellate criminal judgment could be prevented from taking effect through another judicial process and whether a party accused of contempt could obtain relief that effectively delayed compliance with a court order.
He also questioned whether a court that had already become functus officio could subsequently be involved through procedural mechanisms in a matter arising from its earlier decision.
Chidera urged the NBA to take a stronger position on issues affecting the rule of law and the criminal justice system.
He invoked the legacy of the late human rights lawyer, Gani Fawehinmi, whom he described as an advocate who consistently challenged government actions he considered unjust.
The lawyer said the NBA should return to what he described as the tradition of using the legal profession to hold authorities accountable.
He warned that continued silence on issues affecting the administration of justice could damage public confidence in the legal profession and the country’s justice system.
Chidera called on the NBA leadership to address the concerns raised over Kanu’s case and demonstrate that the association remains committed to defending the rule of law irrespective of the political or public profile of a defendant.
Comments are closed.