Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, has addressed recent reports suggesting that the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, is seeking to negotiate with the Nigerian government regarding the terrorism charges against him.
Earlier reports had indicated that during a Federal High Court session in Abuja on Wednesday, Kanu, through his counsel Ejimakor, sought to negotiate with the government. These reports have been widely circulated, causing significant public and media interest.
Read Also:Â Sanusi remains Emir of Kano says govt amid court Judgment on Ado-Bayero, four others
Ejimakor, however, has labeled these reports as false and misleading. He clarified that the court invoked Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act, which directs both the Nigerian government and Kanu to explore the possibility of reconciliation, rather than explicitly stating that Kanu sought negotiation.
Ejimakor’s Statement
“The news titled ‘Kanu seeks negotiation with FG’ is false and a deepfake news meant to twist an idea that was muted as an alternative to trial by the Court and the parties,” Ejimakor stated. “The truth is that the Court directed the parties to consider the option of reconciliation which the law allows.”
Background of the Case
Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of IPOB, has been detained on charges of terrorism and other related offenses. His case has drawn significant attention both domestically and internationally, with various human rights organizations and activists calling for his release. The Federal High Court’s suggestion for reconciliation comes as part of an effort to explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, which are provided for under Nigerian law.
Implications of Section 17
Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act provides a legal framework for reconciliation between parties involved in a legal dispute. This section allows the court to recommend reconciliation as a viable alternative to a protracted trial, which can be beneficial in reducing court backlog and fostering amicable resolutions.
Ejimakor’s clarification highlights the court’s intent to encourage both parties to consider reconciliation, a step that could potentially lead to a more peaceful and negotiated settlement of the issues at hand.
Public and Media Reactions
The initial reports suggesting that Kanu was actively seeking negotiation had sparked a wide range of reactions from the public and media. Supporters of IPOB expressed concerns about the accuracy of these reports, while critics viewed the alleged negotiation as a possible capitulation.
Ejimakor’s prompt response aims to set the record straight and prevent further misinformation from spreading. By emphasizing the court’s role in suggesting reconciliation, he underscores the importance of accurate and responsible reporting in sensitive legal matters.
Conclusion
The clarification by Aloy Ejimakor sheds light on the actual proceedings of the Federal High Court session involving Nnamdi Kanu. It is now clear that the court has recommended reconciliation as an alternative to a full trial, rather than Kanu directly seeking negotiation with the Nigerian government. This development underscores the need for careful interpretation of legal proceedings and the importance of accurate reporting.
As the case progresses, it remains to be seen how both parties will respond to the court’s suggestion and whether a reconciliatory approach can be achieved in this high-profile case
