PRESS BRIEF BY BARRISTER CHRISTOPHER CHIDERA Human Rights Lawyer & Public Advocate On President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Prejudicial Utterances Against IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

Also Read

 

Introduction

On Nigeria’s 63rd Independence Day, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu committed a grave constitutional infraction by equating the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) with Boko Haram terrorists. This reckless declaration, broadcast to the entire nation, struck at the very core of the rule of law, undermined the sanctity of fair trial, and exposed the fragility of Nigeria’s democratic framework.

Tinubu’s Words: Prejudicial and Contemptuous

The President’s utterance was neither a harmless aside nor mere political rhetoric. It was a deliberate branding of a self-determination movement as indistinguishable from one of West Africa’s most violent terror groups.

This was prejudicial, as it intrudes upon ongoing judicial proceedings:

• The Federal High Court in Abuja, before Justice James Omotosho, is presiding over Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial.

• The Supreme Court is actively considering IPOB’s appeal against its proscription.

By equating IPOB to Boko Haram while these matters remain sub judice, the President attempted to influence judicial outcomes from the seat of executive power.

An Executive Assault on Fair Trial Rights

Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees every citizen a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. Tinubu’s comments violate this guarantee, casting IPOB and its leader into the pit of public condemnation before the courts have spoken.

While Section 39 protects freedom of expression, it does not shield a President who, by virtue of his office, wields immense influence over the judiciary. His pronouncements carry the force of executive intimidation, not the casual weight of private speech.

A Recurring Disease of the Presidency

This misconduct is not unprecedented. Former President Muhammadu Buhari once made similar prejudicial remarks about Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Incredibly, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court excused Buhari’s words as free expression. That reasoning was an aberration, placing a derogable right above the non-derogable right to a fair trial.

Tinubu has now repeated the same constitutional trespass. But history will not excuse him. Two executive violations cannot make a constitutional right.

Why This Cannot Stand

The principle of natural justice is settled: “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done” (R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256). No justice can be seen where the President has already pronounced a group guilty in the eyes of the nation.

Comparative jurisprudence affirms this:

• The European Court of Human Rights in Incal v. Turkey (1998) condemned executive labelling of accused persons as terrorists during pending trials.

• Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights — binding on Nigeria — prohibits such executive interference.

Nigeria cannot call itself a constitutional democracy while its Head of State openly undermines pending judicial proceedings.

A Call to Resist Executive Contempt

President Tinubu’s Independence Day remarks were unguarded, prejudicial, and contemptuous of the courts. They must be condemned without equivocation.

The defence of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB should urgently challenge this interference before both Nigerian courts and international judicial bodies. The Nigerian judiciary must rise above executive intimidation and prove its loyalty to the Constitution, not to Aso Rock.

The world is watching. Nigeria is on trial. The question remains: Are we governed by laws, or by the reckless tongue of those who rule?

---

Barrister Christopher Chidera
Human Rights Lawyer & Public Advocate