3 diaspora groups urge referendum for Biafra as lawyer knocks Omotosho over Kanu’s case

From Okey Sampson, Umuahia

Three Diaspora groups, American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID), Rising Sun, and Ambassadors for Self-Determination, all based in the United States of America (USA), have called on the Nigerian government to recognise referendum as a democratic right, arguing that demands for self-determination should not be criminalised.

This is as a legal practitioner, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has accused Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, of failing to address what he described as a fundamental jurisdictional defect in the trial of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu.

In a joint statement signed by Dr Sylvester Onyia of AVID; Evans Nwankwo of Rising Sun, and Dede Maxwell of Ambassadors for Self Determination, the groups questioned what they described as Nigeria’s criminalisation of demands for self-determination.

Citing developments they claimed had occurred in the United Kingdom, the organisations argued that Nigeria should permit open debate on self determination and provide a constitutional framework for a referendum for Biafra.

The groups said they have watched with cold fury the recent events in the United Kingdom, “the very country that imposed its parliamentary system on Nigeria and then abandoned every principle it claimed to teach us.

“On September 14, in Cardiff, the leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland signed a joint accord declaring their inalienable right to self-determination. On September 22, the Scottish Parliament voted 84–18 that “Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.  Even a tiny English village, Piddington in Oxfordshire, held a referendum to decide its own fate”.

“In every single one of these cases the British Government did not drag anyone to court for treason neither were people shot dead. The Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, debated them. No one was abducted. No one was thrown into a dungeon and left to rot. No one’s health was deliberately allowed to collapse in custody”.

They maintained that the right of a people to determine their political future should be exercised through a democratic process rather than treated as a criminal act.

The groups also accused the British government of failing to do enough to protect Kanu, whom they described as a British citizen, over his continued detention and legal battles in Nigeria.

They questioned Britain’s response to Kanu’s case, alleging that its silence over his legal challenges and health condition amounted to a failure to protect his rights.

The statement further called for an end to Kanu’s detention, insisting that his advocacy for a referendum should not, in itself, be treated as a crime.

The groups also demanded the immediate medical evacuation and treatment of Kanu, alleging that his health was being neglected in detention.

Meanwhile, a legal practitioner, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has accused Justice James Omotosho of double standards, and questioned his court’s jurisdiction in the trial of Kanu.

In a statement, Ifedi pointed out what he termed “Hypocrisy of Selective Sovereignty,” in Kanu’s case in which he challenged the legality of the proceedings and accused the Nigerian government of applying different legal standards to Kanu and the suspended Deputy Commissioner of Police, Abba Kyari.

Drawing a comparison with the extradition proceedings involving Kyari, Ifedi cited Federal Republic of Nigeria v. DCP Abba Kyari, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/249/2022.

He argued that Nigeria had relied on domestic legal processes and statutory protections when resisting the United States’ request for Kyari’s extradition, but failed to demonstrate similar respect for another country’s sovereignty in Kanu’s case.

The lawyer described the contrast as evidence of what he called selective application of the law, alleging that the Nigerian state invoked legal safeguards when they served its interests but disregarded comparable principles in Kanu’s case.

He accused Justice Omotosho of failing to address what he described as a fundamental jurisdictional defect in the trial of Kanu, alleging that the court failed to establish whether it had the requisite jurisdiction to try Kanu over allegations linked to conduct said to have occurred outside Nigeria, particularly in view of his controversial rendition from Kenya.

Ifedi said the principle of territoriality requires criminal jurisdiction over alleged offences committed in another country to be established in accordance with applicable laws and statutory provisions. He cited Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, arguing that the prosecution was required to establish the relevant statutory conditions for punishing conduct allegedly committed outside Nigeria.

The lawyer faulted the court for allegedly proceeding without determining whether the conduct in question also constituted an offence under Kenyan law, insisting that the issue was fundamental to the court’s jurisdiction.