Obi Aguocha is a member of the House of Representatives representing Ikwuano/Umuahia North/Umuahia South Federal Constituency of Abia State. In this interview, he speaks on the court judgement against the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, how he wasn’t given adequate opportunities to defend himself, the refusal of the government to listen to appeals for political solution to the case, among other issues. JOY ANIGBOGU brings the excerpts:

After many years of what one might call an attritional case against Kanu, he was convicted on all seven terrorism charges. What was your reaction to that?

I expected it. I knew it was going to happen because of the insistence of the government, not even to listen to pleas, not willing to listen to many people, not just myself, trying to ask the government to intervene. They were dismissive and they were insensitive to those pleas. Who else before now has been convicted of terrorism charges in Nigeria?

I also appreciate that the case went through the court process because Kanu has been on trial literally for 10 years. So, now he’s gone through the court process but what does the law say? Section 174 of the constitution gives the president the latitude through the Attorney General to invoke a non-prosecutor before the determination of the case. I was in court every day. There were certain things that even came out that I was hearing for the first time and I was in court almost every time with the Kanu lawyers. But I was happy that before I left the courtroom, I spoke with the consultants who were previously lawyers to Kanu, and Kanu has indicated that within the 90-day allowable, he’s going to appeal the judgment at the Court of Appeal. So, the road is still long.

What I’m saying is that our people should remain calm and not take the laws into their hands. They should allow the court process to end where it should end – the Supreme Court. We don’t want to see people disrupting public peace or people going about their businesses. Those things are not necessary. What is necessary now is our prayers for Kanu, our prayers for his family, our prayers for Nigeria for that matter and then our prayers for his legal team. We should pray that God will give them the wisdom and courage to be able to put up an appellate brief.

The judge complained about how cocky and arrogant Kanu was throughout the duration of his trial. Do you agree with his assessment?

I don’t agree with that. If you have been put in solitary confinement for almost 10 years, you too will react in the same manner that Kanu reacted. Yes, it was unfortunate in certain quarters but this is a man who has been pushed to the wall. He hasn’t been given any opportunities to adequately defend himself. The judgment has come. When you look at section 36 of the constitution, it makes it explicit what the rights of a defendant in a criminal trial are. Kanu was never given those opportunities. The consultants may shed more light on that but there were times they were not allowed even to have access to their client, have discussions with him and know how to plan their defence.

It was one level of frustration or another. That was why I kept screaming that time that given the way and manner the case was being handled and the rush to judgment, it appears that there are two sets of rules.

Was it not strange that Kanu fired his legal team and opted to defend himself?

Remember that as we talk, I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never pretended to be one. Fundamentally, he has a right to also defend himself but he couldn’t have arrived at that decision without any legal advice. Most of us came to court that day and were surprised at his decision to debrief his lawyers.

But he couldn’t have arrived at that decision without also the lawyers giving him legal advice. For the benefit of hindsight; if I had known then, I would have advised him otherwise to have his legal team in place. But if we note the rush to judgment; they would have still arrived at the same conclusion whether he had a defence team or not.

You’re one person who has stood and this must have left you emotionally drained because you invested so much of your time in the case. How do you feel now?

What I did was not extraordinary. It is what every representative ought to do. So, it’s not something for accolades. If you swore an oath to represent a certain group of people, you have to be there to speak for them and advocate for them. No matter how terrible the circumstances are, it’s your responsibility to be able to do that. A lot of people say justice for Kanu; I’ve also advocated for people who lost their jobs in various agencies and parastatals and whose jobs are being restored through the public petition process. That is also part of representation. For me, representation means being there for the truth and not defending false allegations. So, the sacrifice I made was for Kanu’s good. It was also for the good of my constituency and the good of the Igbo race. In Kanu’s case, we’ve always called for a political solution and we still have room for a political solution. What I’m saying is that in cases involving some people, the government entered a nolle prosequi, so why the rush to judgment in Kanu’s matter.

Is this the end of the road or you are ready to fight on?

I’m staying till the last dog dies. He’s my constituent and I will encourage him to continue to maintain that justice is served through constitutional means and the legal process. Even the judge in his ruling saw him as somebody who genuinely was also trying to help his people.

When he talked about the Janjaweed coming to the South-East to occupy our farms and all the stuff; what he was actually trying to do was to defend his people. And I’ve always said that Kanu’s crime was about defending his people.

Even seeking for self-determination; there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and nobody came to court to say he took directives from Kanu to kill anybody.

Do you expect the security situation in the South-East to improve or worsen as a result of the court judgment?

It’s going to get worse especially this Christmas period because a lot of people who are busy enjoying the economics of crime and criminality are using Kanu’s detention as an excuse. What we had expected was that with a political solution in Kanu’s case, all those who are involved in crime and criminality in the South-East would be known and we would begin to round them up and have a peaceful and stable zone.

But I don’t want anybody to begin to think that with the judgment, the South- East is now porous and open for external aggression. No, it’s not going to happen. We’re still going to defend our women and children. We’re still going to defend our institutions and we’re also going to defend our homeland and by extension defend the homeland of the Nigerian people.

It is a wake-up call for all of us in government to come together with the traditional institutions, the business institutions and the clergy and deliberate on the next step following the conviction of Kanu.

Kanu’s conviction was mentioned in the U.S, congressional hearing on Nigeria and it was described by one of the congressmen as a travesty of justice. Are you encouraged by that as his legal team prepares to go on appeal?

It is a travesty of justice. If we say it the heavens will not fall. It is a travesty of justice. Absolutely there was a rushed judgment and that was why when you asked if I was shocked over the conviction, I said no. I expected it. There was no defence that we could have put up that they wouldn’t have arrived at the same conclusion.

But we’re all happy to be circumspect. The international community is watching us in very multifaceted ways looking at genocide against Christians and the continued detention and trial which have ended with the sentencing of Kanu. (Daily Independent)