By Ochereome Nnanna
The excesses of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous
Peoples of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, needed to be put in check, no doubt.
But I think the Army totally mismanaged it and put those who signed his
sureties at risk. In April this year, Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of the Abuja
High Court brought relief to the tensed atmosphere wrought by the continued
illegal detention of Kanu and granted him bail on rather draconian conditions.
*Nnamdi Kanu |
Apart from being barred from granting interviews, addressing
rallies and being in a group of more than ten people at any time, he was
required to procure three sureties for the sum of N100 million each, one of
whom must be a Jewish religious leader (Kanu being a self-acclaimed adherent of
the Jewish religion).
Contrary to expectations, the sureties stepped forward. One
of them was a notable politician, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, who represents
Abia South Senatorial Zone which covers Aba ,
the hotbed of the Biafran agitation and the wellspring of Igbo nationalism.
Apart from possible political opportunism, I understood
Abaribe’s readiness to accept the risky challenge of standing surety for Kanu.
He must have felt duty-bound to obey his constituents’ wishes. I think Abaribe
was also convinced Kanu would not jump bail. Yes indeed, Kanu violated all the
conditions attached to his bail, except the one that concerned Abaribe and the
other sureties: jumping bail.
On Sunday, 10th September 2017, the Army which had launched
its “show of force” under the Operation Python Dance II, had the
first brush with Kanu’s loyalists in his home at Afaraukwu, Umuahia. We saw
video footages of youths armed with stones and some carrying machetes
confronting the armed-to-the-teeth Army, which was circling the area in
troops-filled military trucks and tanks. It was obvious that something drastic
was going to happen to the Biafra agitators.
Later that day, Kanu emerged from his house in another video.
He led newsmen round his compound where, according to him, the military
“invaders clashed with my men”.
Two days later, both the conventional and social media
reported the full-scale invasion of Kanu’s home and its destruction. Following
that, the Governor of Abia State, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu, imposed a dusk-to-dawn
curfew, obviously to prevent the possible mass movement of Kanu’s supporters to
the scene and the obvious bloody consequences. It was after this final push on
Kanu’s home by the military that Kanu was never seen or heard from again till
today.
Two theories are making the rounds as to what might have
happened to Kanu after the 12th September 2017 military action around his home. Former Abia State governor, Orji Uzor Kalu,
who is now a busybody self-appointed spokesman for the All Progressives
Congress, APC, Federal Government, alleged that Kanu had escaped to the United Kingdom through Malaysia .
This line of thought does not stand up to scrutiny. Nnamdi Kanu is not the kind
of person who would be silent if he were a free man. Even if he chose not to
talk, his presence would be detected wherever he is. Till now, there isn’t even
a rumour of his presence anywhere. If he was in the U.K, we would have known.
Kanu would have spoken. Being a British citizen, he would
have no reason to hide; and he could not successfully hide from the eyes of the
British authorities. The military, with all its might and the full complements
(assumedly) of its intelligence arm, had surrounded and watched Kanu’s home
for, at least two days. There was no way that he could have escaped from the
watchful eyes of the mighty Nigerian Army, given the gravity of the offence for
which the military mobilisation was ordered by the Federal Government.
If, however, Kanu was still able to escape the Army’s siege,
it does not speak well for the efficiency of the Army. Given the sort of Army I
believe we have, I am convinced that no one can escape them when they surround
such a person. I do not believe that the Army merely went to Afaraukwu, circled
Kanu’s home for some days and left him free to escape. Then, what did they go
there to do? The logic or commonsense does not stand up at all.
No one in his right senses would fault the move made by the
Federal Government to rein in Kanu’s ballooning agitation, which he was already
capitalising on to threaten elections in the South East. Though unarmed, the
way Kanu led his followers to brush aside fully-armed Mobile Police patrols
sent to prevent him from continuing his city-to-city mobilisations against the
terms of his bail deeply worried all concerned Nigerians, especially
peace-loving Igbo people.
His formation of the Biafra Security Service, BSS, which
mounted a guard of honour for him as he stepped out of his house, took this
matter over the roof. How many more steps remained before Kanu would take up
arms or declare a separate republic all over again, thus plunging the nation to
another civil war? No sane government would have waited to see if it would happen.
Even an Igbo as President of Nigeria, would act accordingly.
The path taken by the Army foiled the bail obligations
imposed on Senator Abaribe and company to produce Kanu in court. They should
have been more patient and methodical, ensuring they never let their quarry out
of their sight for a second. The talks between Kanu, Igbo leaders and South
East Governors towards persuading him to drop Biafra for restructuring appeared to be
heading somewhere, but it seemed the authorities wanted to end Kanu’s right to
negotiate anything.
It is my considered view that if the Army had been more
patient and methodical, they would have been able to isolate and pin down Kanu
to enable Abaribe and other sureties to produce him in court for his trial. If
the Army had not intervened, then of course, the sureties would be bound by law
to pay the resultant penalties if they failed to produce Kanu. I do not fault
Justice Nyako’s insistence that Abaribe and company must produce Kanu.
That was the condition attached to the bail she granted in
court. I don’t understand Abaribe’s strenuous effort to wriggle out of being
Kanu’s surety after his ward disappeared. There might be a legal explanation
which might come to light as the case is entertained again come 20th November 2017.
The military intervention which led to Kanu’s apparent
disappearance was an event that Abaribe and other bailers could not have
foreseen. They could not have succeeded in persuading the military not to carry
out the order to nail Kanu, even if they had tried. Whether Kanu escaped or he
died during the military siege or he is in the hands of the military, only the
military can account for it, not Abaribe and company.
This is my layman’s view, and I stand to be corrected.
No comments:
Post a Comment