Aloy Ejimakor, the lead counsel for Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has stated that the prolonged trial and detention of his client must have a time limit. He criticized the Nigerian government for failing to bring Kanu to trial within a reasonable period, arguing that such delays violate constitutional provisions and fundamental human rights. According to him, the continued incarceration of Kanu without a proper trial amounts to indefinite detention, which is against the principles of justice and fair hearing.
Ejimakor emphasized that since the government has failed to initiate a proper legal process within a reasonable time, the best course of action is to put an end to the matter by either reinstating Kanu’s previously revoked bail or discontinuing the case altogether. He noted that the Nigerian Constitution, as well as international legal standards, frown upon prolonged detention without trial, as it undermines the credibility of the legal system and violates the rights of the accused.
He further pointed out that from the onset, the trial of Kanu has been marred by legal irregularities, particularly regarding jurisdiction. He reiterated his long-standing demand that the case be transferred from the Federal High Court in Abuja to a court within the South-East region, where the alleged offenses were said to have been committed. Ejimakor argued that such a transfer is not only legally appropriate but also necessary to ensure that due process is followed. He cited relevant legal provisions, including Order 49, Rule 3 of the Federal High Court Rules and Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act, to support his claim that the Federal High Court divisions in the South-East are more suited to handle the case than the Abuja division.
The lawyer expressed concern over the prolonged delays in the trial, noting that for nearly five months—from September 2024 to February 2025—Kanu’s case was absent from the court’s docket. He described the situation as a legal impasse that has left many questioning the government’s true intentions. According to him, if the government cannot proceed with a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe, then Kanu’s continued detention becomes unjustifiable. He argued that under the common law system, when the state encounters insurmountable difficulties in prosecuting a detainee within a reasonable period, the appropriate legal step is to release the individual on bail until such a time when a proper trial can take place.
Ejimakor emphasized that detaining Kanu indefinitely without trial amounts to political persecution rather than legal prosecution. He pointed out that under Nigeria’s legal system, a suspect is entitled to a trial within a reasonable time, and any prolonged delay infringes upon their rights. He cited the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which mandates speedy trials, especially for those in detention, stating that failure to comply with this provision renders Kanu’s continued detention unconstitutional.
He further argued that it is unfair and unlawful to keep Kanu incarcerated while awaiting a trial that appears increasingly uncertain. He noted that the responsibility for ensuring a timely trial lies with the government, not the accused, and that Kanu has no legal duty or capacity to schedule his own court hearings. He stressed that if the government is unable to proceed with the case, then the only lawful and responsible decision is to release him.
Ejimakor concluded that Kanu’s case, which began as a legal matter, has now become more political than judicial. He asserted that the Nigerian government must make a clear decision—either to conduct a fair trial or to release Kanu unconditionally. He warned that allowing the case to remain in limbo while Kanu remains in detention would only further expose the government’s unwillingness to uphold justice. According to him, at this point, Kanu is no longer just an awaiting-trial detainee but a political prisoner, and his continued incarceration without trial is unacceptable under any democratic system.