Abubakar Malami (SAN), the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice have stated that if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, the Muhammadu Buhari-led administration will comply with the ruling.
According to reports within Nigeria, Nigeria’s chief law officer has stated that the Federal Government will pursue all legal options in the case of the IPOB leader.
When the cases are exhausted, when within the context of the rule of law and the decisions and conclusions are in his favour, the government will comply. But whatever option is open and available to the government, the government will exploit it within the context of the rule of law, within the context of the rights available at his disposal, Malami told Vanguard.
Rule Of Law And Others
Malami went on to say that four factors must be considered before the government can release the pro-Biafra activist.
The Attorney-General believes that four factors must be considered: the rule of law, the public and national interest, the security situation, and international diplomacy.
AGF Malami stated that the single case that has been determined is not the only pending case against Nnamdi Kanu, as there are numerous other treason cases pending against him.
He said:
To release or not to release Nnamdi Kanu is a function of the law and the rule of law for that matter. In arriving at a decision whether to release or not release, one; you look at the rule of law, two; you look at the public and the national interest, three; you look at the security situation, and four; you look at international diplomacy. Let me first talk about the rule of law. This is someone that has been granted bail on account of charges that have been preferred against him at the court. To the international community, a case of fugitive is established against the background of bail jumping. Two, arising from national security, this is someone that is charged with treason, incitement of the public, destruction of civil authority, a kind of murder and assassination of others on account of his incitement. That bores down to issues that bother us on issues of national security and criminality.
Three, on account of international diplomacy, this is someone that has turned against his person, using the international community or a foreign country to launch an attack against a nation, against his nation, for example for that matter. So all these naturally come into play to determine what you do. So, if you have equally gone through judicial processes, multiple cases, a case of treason, a case of homicide, a case of jumping bail, among others, the fact that you have indeed succeeded in one case as opposed to multiple others that are pending, goes to establish the fact that that case cannot be the only basis and criteria for determining whether you are entitled to be released or not.
So the simple question is, whether what the Federal Government has done, by way of not releasing Kanu, is justified within the context of the rule of law, and my answer is yes; it is justified. This is because the single case that has been determined is not the only pending case against Kanu, as there are other multiple cases associated with treason. There exist multiple appeals that are pending and yet to be determined, and then again, there are international public interest dimensions, and the essence of the government is the sustenance of the public and not an individual interest.