Premium News
The Nigeria Police Force and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, have been called upon to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, and all others arrested in connection with the protests for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Human rights activist and convener of the Take It Back Movement, Omoyele Sowore, had earlier confirmed the arrest of Ejimakor and Prince Kanu, stating, “The PoliceNG team deployed to brutalise #FreeNnamdiKanuNow protesters arrested Nnamdi Kanu’s brother, and his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, as well as innocent bystanders.”
Ejimakor himself posted on social media, “We’ve just been arrested. Myself, Prince Emmanuel and others. We are at FCT COMMAND CID. Myself, Fine Boy and others. No 1 Zaria Street, Gariki 2, Abuja.”
Their lawyer, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, SAN, described the arrests as “illegal and amounting to intimidation of defence,” citing a Supreme Court judgment that condemned similar actions.
“The arrest of a legal practitioner acting for an accused, or of a witness whose attendance is necessary to the accused’s defence is a direct affront to these constitutional guarantees and to the rule of law,” Ume stated.
The petition, addressed to the Attorney General, Inspector General of Police, and Commissioner of Police in FCT, noted that the continued detention of counsel and associates in a matter sub judice “constitutes a clear sabotage of the judicial process and an institutional contempt of court.”
Ume cited Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and Section 287(3) of the Constitution, which makes binding the decisions and orders of the Federal High Court upon all authorities and persons in Nigeria.
The petition partly read: “Your office is fully aware that these persons are counsel and witness in the ongoing proceedings of FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu & Ors.
“Certainly, this arrest and detention are targeted and discriminatory and could end up leading to denying the defendant in the FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu & Ors from having a good defense as required under Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“This right provides an absolute liberty to the Defendant to pick and choose any legal practitioner to represent him and any witness to testify on his behalf. The provision further commands that the defence witnesses be treated in the same conditions as the prosecution’s witnesses.
“Why then would the Police and DSS work to undermine this right by treating witnesses to the Defendant’s case in a far worse manner by arrest and detention than the treatment accorded to witnesses for the prosecution,” Ume questioned.
He reminded the authorities that the arrest of a legal practitioner acting for an accused, or of a witness whose attendance is necessary to the accused’s defence is a direct affront to these constitutional guarantees and to the rule of law.
“It threatens the accused’s right to a fair trial, undermines confidence in the criminal justice process, and places counsel in an impossible position unable to discharge professional duties without fear of arrest,” citing the decided Supreme Court case in Mohammed v. Attorney-General, Federation (2021), where the Court held: “The accused person is at liberty to call any witness not called by the prosecution that he believes would assist his case.”
“For these reasons, arresting lawyers and/or witnesses in order to block or hinder defence representation is contrary to both domestic constitutional protections and well-established international standards on the role of lawyers. The United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) make clear that “all persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice” and that lawyers must be able to perform all professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
“It is on record that the proceedings in the FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu & Ors is slated for defendant to open his defence through his witnesses one of who is Prince Emma Kanu and through one of his counsel Aloy Ejimakor Esq. all now arrested and detained by your Office. This is constructive, unlawful and illegal exclusion of these persons from the said proceeding.”
The petition demanded the immediate and unconditional release of Ejimakor, Prince Kanu, and all others arrested, as well as an investigation into the unconstitutional interference and corrective measures to prevent further occurrences.
The lawyers also referenced international obligations and professional standards, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which prohibit the harassment or persecution of lawyers for representing their clients.
The petition added, “By virtue of Section 36(4)(a) of the Constitution, it is only the court that can exclude any person, including a counsel or witness, from attending or participating in court proceedings. Thus, this arbitrary arrest and detention constitute not merely a violation of personal liberty, but a direct interference with the constitutional right to fair hearing and representation by counsel of choice, as guaranteed under Section 36(4)(a) and (6)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
“Thus, the present arrest of the above persons constitutes a gross usurpation of judicial authority and a flagrant contempt of the Federal High Court currently seized of the FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu & Ors.
“Furthermore, Section 287(3) of the Constitution makes binding the decisions and orders of the Federal High Court upon all authorities and persons in Nigeria, including the Police and the Attorney-General. Any executive act that frustrates compliance with the court’s proceedings is, therefore, a contempt of that court and an affront to the rule of law.
“We must emphasise that the right to prepare and conduct a defence is an inseparable part of the justice process. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, particularly Sections 36 and 379, underscores the duty of all authorities to ensure that a Defendant and his counsel are accorded full facilities for the preparation of defence. The arrest of counsel mid-trial is the very antithesis of that duty.”
It added, “Nigeria, as a member of the international community, is bound by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9, LFN 2004), which under Articles 5, 6, and 7, guarantees the right to dignity, liberty, and fair hearing. Likewise, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) upholds the right to counsel and to adequate facilities for defence preparation. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) expressly forbid the harassment or persecution of lawyers for representing their clients.”
The petitioner demanded among others: “That Barr. Aloy Ejimakor, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, and all others arrested in connection with the ongoing lawful defence of the matter FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 be released immediately and unconditionally.
“That the Nigeria Police Force refrain from any further acts that may obstruct or intimidate members of the defence team or witnesses. That the Inspector-General of Police orders an immediate investigation into this unconstitutional interference and takes corrective measures to prevent further occurrences,” the petition concluded.
