11/22/2025
NNAMDI KANU AND THE JUDICIARY — CONDEMN THE SENTENCE, NOT LAWLESSNESS
We condemn in the strongest terms the sentence handed down to Nnamdi Kanu. Any fair-minded person who cares about justice and due process can — and should — question aspects of the trial, the charges, and the severity of the punishment. Legitimate criticism of judicial outcomes is part of a healthy democracy. At the same time, criticism must not be an excuse for disorder, violence, or actions that jeopardize lives and the cause for which people protest.
WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT: RUDENESS, ARRANGEMENTS, AND INSULTS
- Disruptive behavior:
During key hearings, Kanu repeatedly interrupted proceedings. Reports and courtroom footage show him speaking out of turn, shouting at the bench, and refusing to comply with standard courtroom decorum. Such behavior undermines the formal process and gives judges grounds to control the courtroom and record a strained relationship between the accused and the court.
- Verbal insults: He directed abusive comments and insults at judges and at legal officers. This heightened tensions and painted his conduct as confrontational rather than cooperative.
- Refusal to follow procedures: Kanu declined to follow courtroom directions on multiple occasions and challenged the authority of the presiding judge in visible, loud ways that were recorded in the court transcript and observed by lawyers and the public.
HOW HE REJECTED AND DISGRACED HIS OWN LAWYER
- Public rejection of counsel:
On several occasions Kanu made clear he did not want representation from his assigned lawyers, dismissing their advice and refusing to allow them to call witnesses or make arguments on his behalf. This public repudiation created an appearance that he preferred to speak for himself rather than rely on counsel.
- Undermining legal strategy:
By overriding his lawyers in open court and contradicting agreed strategies, he deprived them of the ability to present a coordinated defense. It also put them in the untenable position of either following his wishes (even if detrimental) or withdrawing.
- Humiliation of counsel:
Some exchanges show Kanu openly insulting or shaming his legal team in front of the court, which not only damaged their credibility but also interfered with the attorney-client relationship necessary for an effective defense.
KANU WAS OFFERED OPTIONS TO DEFEND HIMSELF — AND WAVED THEM AWAY
- Repeated offers:
The court and legal counsel repeatedly offered Kanu opportunities to mount a legal defense: to call witnesses, file motions, present evidence, and rely on counsel to raise procedural and constitutional objections.
- Arrogant refusal:
He often rejected those avenues, choosing instead to engage the bench directly with shouting and accusations. By doing so, he forfeited procedural advantages that a disciplined defense might have preserved.
- Consequences of refusal:
Rejecting legal counsel and established courtroom procedures limits appeal grounds, gives the judge less reason to accommodate claims of unfairness, and can result in stricter courtroom management.
WHY THE SHOUTING AND INSULTS? POSSIBLE MOTIVES — AND WHY THEY BACKFIRED
- Political theatre:
Some of Kanu’s confrontational acts appear calculated to rally supporters and to frame himself as a martyr resisting an unjust system. That strategy can energize followers, but it risks alienating neutral observers and the judiciary.
- Emotional response:
Facing severe charges and the prospect of long imprisonment, a defendant may react with anger and desperation. However, unchecked emotion in court often harms legal outcomes.
- Tactical misjudgment:
The attempts to intimidate or shame the bench can be seen as attempts to control the narrative. In practice, it undermined professional sympathy and made it easier for the court to justify firm rulings.
WHY PROTEST NOW — AND WHY VIOLENCE IS A CATASTROPHIC MISTAKE
- Timing of protests:
Many protests followed the verdict and sentencing because emotions were raw and communities felt a deep sense of grievance. The desire to show solidarity is understandable.
- Danger of escalation:
Once protests turn violent — especially involving fi****ms or targeted attacks — they change the balance entirely. Violence invites a security crackdown, criminal prosecutions, and long-term damage to the public sympathy that peaceful protests can generate.
- LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR KANU AND THE MOVEMENT:
- Criminal charges:
Violent protests can lead to arrests, terrorism-related charges, and evidence being used against movement leaders, including claims that Kanu’s followers engaged in unlawful conduct on his behalf.
- Hardening of government position:
Security forces and the judiciary often respond more harshly when public order is threatened. That can reduce the likelihood of clemency, appeal success, or negotiated outcomes.
- Undermined legitimacy:
Civil resistance wins when it remains nonviolent and principled. Gunfire and property destruction shift public perception, making it easier for opponents to paint the movement as extremist, and weakening international support.
- Risk to Kanu’s welfare:
Authorities may use violent unrest as justification for stricter confinement, reduced privileges, or harsher treatment in prison, directly harming Kanu’s conditions and chances for future relief.
A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY FORWARD FOR THE IGBO COMMUNITY
- Demand accountability peacefully:
Continue to demand review, appeal, or political redress through lawful channels — legal appeals, petitions, diplomatic pressure, peaceful marches, and civic advocacy.
- Document and publicize grievances:
Collect and present evidence of trial irregularities, procedural errors, or human-rights concerns to independent bodies, local bar associations, and international observers.
- Protect the movement’s moral high ground:
Nonviolent discipline preserves legitimacy and broad public sympathy. It also makes it harder for authorities to dismiss claims as mere armed rebellion.
- Focus on legal strategy:
Support credible legal teams, fund appeals, and ensure counsel can operate without interference from those they represent.
- Engage political and international actors:
Lobby legislators, human rights organizations, and foreign diplomats to press for transparency, fair treatment, and review if warranted.
CONCLUSION
We can and should condemn the sentence and push for justice, review, and accountability. But the cause will be harmed if anger turns to insults, courtroom disorder, or violent protest. Kanu’s courtroom behavior — rejecting counsel, insulting the bench, and refusing routine defenses — reduced legal options and complicated the path to relief. Meanwhile, armed or violent protests risk criminalizing the movement, drawing harsh reprisals, and making it harder to obtain justice for Kanu and for legitimate grievances. For the sake of Kanu’s future, the Igbo people’s safety, and the broader cause, channel anger into lawful, disciplined, and strategic action.
