Nnamdi Kanu’s Detention: Legal Team Raises Concerns

Concerns About Kanu’s Detention and Legal Preparations

Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team has reiterated their concerns about the continued detention of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) by the Department of State Services (DSS). They argue that his ongoing detention at the DSS constitutes a permanent hindrance to any prospect of securing a fair trial. This follows the court’s refusal to grant applications for his bail restoration, transfer to prison custody, or home detention.

The legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, Esq., highlighted issues with the conditions under which Kanu is allowed to meet his lawyers. They stated that the room provided for these meetings is an office of a senior DSS officer and lacks the necessary privacy. They suspect it may not be free from secret monitoring devices, unlike the interrogation room previously used.

Furthermore, despite a court order permitting Kanu’s lawyers to enter with books and take notes during briefings, the DSS has reportedly imposed restrictions. Lawyers have been denied entry with papers and had their eyeglasses confiscated, impairing their ability to read legal provisions crucial for Kanu’s defence.

Concerns Over Fair Trial and Constitutional Standards

The legal team claims these conditions are designed to obstruct the adequate preparation of Kanu’s defence. They argue that the prosecution’s push for an accelerated trial under such conditions suggests either a lack of seriousness or an intention to conduct a “kangaroo trial” devoid of fair play.

Kanu’s lawyers insist that, consequently, any criminal trial must ensure equality of arms, as mandated by the Nigerian Constitution. This means that, furthermore, the defendant’s conditions of detention allow for the unimpeded preparation of their defence, which is, notably, a minimum standard necessary for any trial to proceed.

See also  Police Reiterate Ban on Protests in Kano State

The legal team reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring that Kanu receives a trial that adheres to constitutional standards. They warned that failing to meet these standards would result in a grave miscarriage of justice and be fundamentally unethical.

Further reading

Follow us on Socials:

Spread the love