Reported By Mary Udezue | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Abuja, Nigeria — Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, special counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has sharply criticised the Federal Government and top leaders’ visits to Kanu — asserting they “made no difference” amid ongoing concerns about the conditions of his detention and obstacles to a fair trial.
Ejimakor’s comments resonate with longstanding complaints from Kanu’s legal team about restrictions surrounding his detention, the conduct of legal proceedings, and access to counsel during years of pre‑trial and trial processes. The lawyer has repeatedly highlighted issues relating to the Department of State Services (DSS) custody in Abuja and the logistical challenges facing Kanu’s defence.
In a recent legal development in November 2025, Ejimakor disclosed that Kanu was relocated from DSS custody in Abuja to a correctional facility in Sokoto, a transfer he criticised for placing the detained agitator far from his lawyers, family and supporters. He described the move as a serious impediment to preparing a defence, emphasising that geographical distance undermines core rights to effective legal representation and fair trial practices.
Legal practitioners advocating for Kanu have long underscored systemic barriers they assert impede the defence’s work. Ejimakor and the team have cited repeated difficulties in securing unfettered access to their client, strict conditions during visits, and logistical hurdles that complicate case preparation — factors they argue are incompatible with fair trial standards. Earlier in the case, Ejimakor noted, for example, that DSS restrictions prevented attorneys from consulting as a team or with necessary legal materials, raising constitutional questions about equality of arms and defence rights.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of Kanu’s protracted legal saga, which has spanned years, multiple courts, and international attention. Having been arrested in 2021, brought back to Nigeria after fleeing on bail years earlier, and subsequently tried and sentenced to life imprisonment in November 2025 under terrorism charges, his case has drawn significant scrutiny over procedural fairness and detention conditions.
Ejimakor’s recent critique — that visits by government figures and other leaders have effected “no difference” — reflects frustration that symbolic gestures have not translated into tangible improvements in detention conditions or meaningful progress toward a transparent, expeditious legal process. Critics of the government argue that Kanu’s prolonged institutionalisation far from his base in the southeast, attendant bureaucratic obstacles, and the logistical complications of securing legal consultation amount to conditions that jeopardise his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Human rights advocates have echoed parts of Ejimakor’s concerns, pointing to broader questions about procedural fairness in high‑profile terrorism and security‑related cases in Nigeria. They highlight that obstacles to counsel access, delays in court proceedings, and restrictions on legal strategy preparation can collectively erode defendants’ constitutional protections.
Government officials have maintained that all legal processes are ongoing within statutory frameworks and that any movements of detainees or detentions reflect lawful judicial actions. However, Ejimakor’s criticisms emphasise that without concrete changes in how Kanu’s legal team can engage with their client and prepare for appellate procedures, leadership visits and public commentary do little to address fundamental questions of justice and due process.
As Kanu’s legal battle continues — including pending appeals and questions around the legality of the legal framework under which he was convicted — Ejimakor’s remarks reinforce calls for an impartial, transparent, and accessible legal process aligned with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards. The debate highlights ongoing tensions between national security jurisprudence and individual rights safeguards in politically sensitive cases.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments