The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) on Tuesday described as “unconstitutional, provocative, primitive, illegal and outrageously non-methodical” the treatment of the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. “The handling of the matter filed before the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Binta Murtallah-Nyako has been anything but fair and just. The Federal Attorney General and minister of Justice has demonstrated an unacceptable level of lawlessness and non-adherence to the due process and has shown disrespect and disregard to the PRINCI0LES OF RULE OF LAW but has operated under the PRINCIPLE OF RULE OF BRUTE FORCE. The process has also been subjected to systematic odium and characterised by DISCRIMINATION,” HURIWA said in a statement signed by the the National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko.

According to the group, “This deliberate voiding of the PRINCIPLE OF RULE OF LAW in the case of Mazi Nnmadi Kanu of the now proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) directly offends Section 42. (1) which provides explicitly that: ‘A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person:-

(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject; or

(b) be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions.’

“Section 42(1) of the constitution of Nigeria spells out the imperative need for government officials to eschew discriminatory practices but the Federal Government has used apatheid type of justice dispensation in the case of Mazi Nnmadi Kanu and has treated him with the short end of the stick in flagrant violation of section 36(5) which states that all accused persons are to be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until it is proven to the contrary by the COMPETENT COURT OF LAW. Section 6 gives JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE FEDERATION TO THE COURTS.”

HURIWA alleged that “the federal government of President Muhammadu Buhari has treated Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as a hostage or prisoner of conscience or something even worse than that.

They are treating him as a tenant in a labour camp of pre-1945 Second World War era or as one of the 6 million Jews murdered in the gas chambers by the then repressive pre-WW2 GERMAN GOVERNMENT.

“The constant illegal and provocative amendment of charges and the frequent multiplication of same charges by the federal government are as primitive, callous, wicked and it is a medieval type of practice which is totally unconstitutional.

“The ugly fact that the government has amended Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s charges for more than four times which is targeted at delaying the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is against constitutional democracy because JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED and because Nigerian Constitution has clearly spelt out the principle of check and balances among three arms of government, these backward tendencies of government to obstruct the quick dispensation of justice is grotesque and unnatural. The constitutional principles of checks and balances are between the three arms of government namely, the legislative, the judiciary and the executive arms of government. But what the attorney general has done in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case is that he has hijacked the function of the judicialarm through subterfuge exemplified by the constant illegal amendments of charges against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”

HURIWA noted that “If it were in civilized climes Nigeria’s federal attorney general would have been dismissed and disbarred from practicing law.”