Rights group, HDRA condemns kanu’s conviction claiming it has political undertones, judicial dichotomy

PHIL OKOSE, Onitsha

Reactions have continued to trail the life jail sentence passed on the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of an Abuja High court, with the latest coming from the National President of Human Dignity Restoration Association, HDRA, Rev. comrade Jude Achebe.

Reacting to the conviction, Achebe stated in a release to newsmen that there is a dichotomy in Judicial Stances as Kenyan and Nigerian Courts were at variance over Nnamdi Kanu’s extraordinary rendition.

He said, “A pronounced disparity has emerged between the High Court of Kenya and the Federal High Court of Nigeria regarding the abduction and rendition of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

This incongruity underscores the complexities and nuances inherent in international law and human rights jurisprudence.

“On June 24, 2025, Justice E.C. Nwite of the High Court in Nairobi, Kenya, pronounced judgment, decreeing that Kanu’s abduction, detention, and rendition to Nigeria in 2021 were unlawful, unconstitutional, and constituted a gross infraction of his fundamental human rights.

“The court awarded Kanu 10 million Kenyan shillings (approximately ₦120 million) in compensatory damages against the Kenyan government, thereby affirming the sacrosanct nature of human rights and the imperative of upholding the rule of law.

“Conversely, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Nigeria, sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment on November 20, 2025, for terrorism-related charges.

Notwithstanding the acknowledged illegality of Kanu’s rendition, the judge opined that the court retained jurisdiction to try the accused, citing the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, a US legal principle permitting trials despite unlawful arrests,” Achebe stated.

According to Achebe, the Kenyan court unequivocally condemned Kanu’s rendition as unlawful, whereas the Nigerian court, while acknowledging its illegality, proceeded with the trial, thereby generating a judicial dichotomy.

The HDRA boss stated that Kenyan court found that Kanu’s rights had been grossly violated, whereas the Nigerian court focused on his alleged crimes, thereby prioritizing punitive measures over human rights considerations.

“The Kenyan court demonstrated commendable judicial bravery, whereas the Nigerian court’s decision has been criticized as being influenced by political expediency.

“This divergence in judicial perspectives highlights the challenges inherent in reconciling competing interests and underscores the imperative of upholding human rights and the rule of law in international relations.