By ALOY EJIMAKOR
Let it be clear that my muscular public crusade against the continued detention and trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is primarily driven by the various judicial pronouncements and legal principles (municipal and international) against his rendition, detention and trial.
I am also convinced that his case is more political than legal, especially if we pedal back to how it all started which is: His spirited pursuit of political justice, culminating in his popular demand for a referendum on Biafra.
A lot of folks are probably unaware that there is a subsisting Federal High Court judgment that declared his rendition and detention unconstitutional and two international tribunal pronouncements in the same regard. This means that Nnamdi Kanu could have been freed on the purport of any of these pronouncements.
Yet, his freedom is being frustrated by some fringe elements who have maliciously latched to the fallacy that his continued detention somewhat furthers national security. This is pure sophistry because the evidence on ground proves the opposite to be true, given that the vaunted national security actually suffered significantly in the Southeast region following Kanu’s rendition in 2021.
Ponder this: Is regional security in the Southeast not an integral part of national security? While you’re thinking about this, keep in mind that any notion of national security is incomplete without a concomitant regional security in the Southeast.
Thus, President Ahmed Tinubu should be wary of anybody that advises him against releasing Kanu, pivoting on some false notion of national security or even some slippery legality. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The plain truth is that the continued detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is markedly illegal and constitutes a significant burden on national security. It is also politically risky and has become unsustainable to boot.
