Onwuasoanya FCC Jones, PhD.
I expected a good majority of Nnamdi Kanu’s sympathizers to have, over the last two weeks, become better enlightened about the character and apparent emptiness of their man. If anyone was genuinely confused about Nnamdi Kanu’s insincerity, his actions in the last two weeks should have enlightened any genuine seeker of truth that the Afara-Ukwu man is just a dimwitted conman made into a hero by the faulty Nigerian system.
From sacking his legal team led by one of the brightest legal minds around, to deciding to take up his defence himself, to listing a comedy cast of witnesses, to requesting 90 days extension to open his defence, to turning around to say he was ready to open his defence without those witnesses, to making another sudden turnaround less than 24 hours after to say that he was no longer going to open his defence because he doesn’t see where his crime lies. It has been a very dry series of badly acted comedy for the terrorist suspect and leader of the proscribed IPOB.
I had in the past discussed why his earlier positions on his trial are all senseless, and at each turn he has proven me right by abandoning those arguments and sticking to another. Now, his current position is that the prosecution should show him the laws of Nigeria upon which they base their case. He said that if the prosecution does not do so, he will not open a defence, and that the court should immediately release him to go home. As laughable as this argument is, I will still need to interrogate it and enlighten us on why this argument is senseless and self-indicting.
It is obvious that Kanu and his lawyers had been relying on some extra-judicial methods for his freedom or exoneration as their recent presentations both in court and outside the court reveal that they had never prepared to take adequate advantage of the opportunity provided for them by the impartial court to prove the innocence or correctness of the actions of the IPOB leader.
His argument that he is being tried under a repealed law would have been best presented during his defence. A defence is simply an opportunity for the accused to employ legal strategies to dismantle the case of the prosecution by quoting relevant laws and presenting counter evidence to show that the prosecution is wrong to bring charges against him.
Nnamdi Kanu had two options; to plead guilty to the charges against him or to plead not guilty, and then present his arguments, backed by law and logic on why he is not guilty. He has failed to do either.
Justice James Omotosho, apparently, taking cognisance of the sensitivity of the matter and the attention of the public to it, has over-indulged Kanu. By now, he should have ordered both the prosecution and defence to make their final addresses and fixed a date to deliver judgement, but he has given the terrorist suspect more than a generous opportunity to reconsider his self-indicting option.
By tomorrow, if Nnamdi Kanu does not reconsider his decision, he would simply be telling the judge that the prosecutor’s accusations against him are accurate, hence, self-admittance of guilt, and the judge would have no other options but to write his judgement based on the evidence and logic advanced by the prosecution.
At the end of the day, justice will prevail, and heaven will not fall.
