Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has opted to represent himself in ongoing legal proceedings. This decision follows his disengagement of his entire legal team. Aloy Ejimakor, who previously served as Kanu’s legal representative and now acts as a consultant, publicly confirmed this development.

According to Ejimakor, Kanu’s refusal to retain legal counsel has resulted in delays in filing an appeal against his life sentence issued by the Federal High Court in Abuja. Ejimakor stated, “MNK has not filed his appeal yet because he has refused to hire lawyers. You know he disengaged us as his lawyers, so we now act in the capacity of a consultant. I am a consultant to him.” He attributed Kanu’s choice to a preference for managing his legal defense personally, referencing historical precedents such as Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who also chose self-representation during his own legal challenges.

Ejimakor added, “I don’t know why he does not want a lawyer, but I believe it is because he is a great man. Many great men are like that. They believe you can’t present their case like they can themselves. Even Awolowo refused to hire lawyers in his time. MNK wants to represent himself, and there are about four or five processes he has to follow to file the appeal before the Appellate Court.” This statement underscores the procedural complexities associated with self-representation, as an appellant must comply with specific steps to file an appeal.

Kanu was convicted on seven terrorism-related charges and sentenced to life imprisonment. Following sentencing, authorities transferred him from Kuje Correctional Centre in Abuja to Sokoto Correctional Facility. Officials cited security concerns, including recent prison breaks at Kuje, as the reason for the transfer.

Kanu has filed a motion before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, seeking to be moved from Sokoto to a custodial facility nearer to Abuja, such as Suleja or Keffi. In his motion, Kanu stated that the distance,over 700 kilometres from Abuja,creates substantial barriers to preparing his appeal. He argued that the location restricts access to relatives, associates, and legal consultants, most of whom are based in Abuja. He claims this situation impedes his ability to exercise his constitutional right to appeal.

The motion reads, “The applicant’s continued detention in Sokoto renders his constitutional right to appeal impracticable, occasioning exceptional hardship and potentially defeating the said right, in violation of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).” Kanu’s advisory team supports this position, emphasizing legal and logistical obstacles stemming from the current detention arrangement.

Ejimakor commented on the transfer issue, stating, “The court already said he can’t be in Kuje prison, so that is fine, but he needs to be closer to Abuja, so if the court will grant his motion to be transferred to Suleja prison or Keffi. To me, there is nothing special about any prison in Nigeria. They are all the same, but MNK needs to be close to Abuja.”

Historical analysis indicates that self-representation in high-profile Nigerian cases is not without precedent. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, former Premier of the Old Western Region, represented himself during his 1960s treason trial. Ejimakor’s comparison suggests that Kanu’s strategy is consistent with prior examples of defendants seeking direct control over their legal proceedings.

Kanu’s case continues to attract significant attention, both domestically and internationally, raising questions about legal procedure, detainee rights, and broader political dynamics in Nigeria. The efficacy of Kanu’s decision to act as his own counsel remains undetermined, but it introduces additional procedural complexity to the case.