The Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra has called for the release of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, and Yoruba Nation agitator, Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho.
Kanu was reportedly arrested in Kenya in June 2021 and brought to Nigeria to face trial after being charged with offences bordering on treasonable felony and terrorism, while Igboho was arrested in Cotonou, Benin Republic.
The President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.) in an interview with Channels Television on Wednesday said Kanu should defend himself in court over utterances he (Kanu) made about him and the country.
MASSOB’s Director of Information, Samuel Edeson, told Saturday Punch in an interview, “We know he can’t release Kanu because of the hatred for Biafrans. On the other hand, we maintain our stand that Kanu, other pro-Biafra agitators and all the prisoners of conscience being held by security agencies should be released.
“They must also free Sunday Igboho; they must release them because they have committed no crime. It is not a crime for a man to agitate for self-determination. Everybody wishes to enjoy peace, but our people said in Igbo adage that a child that says his mother will not sleep will also not sleep. It’s obvious nothing is working in his government. We won’t take up arms against him, but through diplomacy, we will frustrate all the efforts he is making.”
Meanwhile, Kanu’s lead counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, on Friday asked the President to stop interfering in his client’s trial. He also called on the President to caution the Department of State Services to obey all court orders relating to the case.
Ejiofor, in a statement titled ‘Update on our routine visit to our indefatigable client – Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu at the headquarters of the DSS, Abuja, being January 6, 2022’, maintained that the Federal Government had no case against the IPOB leader.
Ejiofor said, “We visited our most revered client as routinely guaranteed by the court protocol at the DSS (facility). Interestingly, a number of engaging developments were discussed, including the stereotyped response by the President on issues relating to political solutions to our client’s case. We were not one bit perturbed by his response knowing full well that they have no case against our client.
“What we are earnestly asking for is nothing else but for the executive arm of government, led by the President, to desist from further interfering with the judicial process. We can authoritatively confirm to the world that the executive arm, ably led by the President, is gravely and effectively interfering in our client’s judicial proceedings.”
