The leader of Niger Delta Forum Comrade Sunday Briggs speaking with media on 13th October, 2025 in Port Harcourt, Rivers State has strongly warned against the call by Omoyele Sowore for the #MNKOct20 Campaign # with attendant solidarity gestures anywhere in the region.
Briggs posited that the planned course of action is hinged on the argument by Aloy Ejimakor, counsel to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, that Kanu’s trial is illegal due to his extraordinary rendition from Kenya, for which a counterperspective holds that Nigeria retains the legal authority to prosecute Kanu for alleged crimes, and halting the trial would undermine justice and national security.Briggs’ counter argument to Ejimakor’s claims is grounded in legal, practical, and contextual considerations.
- Nigeria’s Prosecutorial Jurisdiction Remains Valid:
Ejimakor asserts that Kanu’s rendition from Kenya—a process he equates to the 1984 Umaru Dikko kidnapping—strips Nigeria of jurisdiction under international law. However, this overlooks established legal precedents where states have prosecuted individuals despite irregular extraditions. Courts globally, including in Nigeria, often prioritize domestic law over the circumstances of a defendant’s return, provided the charges are valid. The Nigerian Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling, which overturned the Court of Appeal’s acquittal of Kanu, reaffirmed this by remanding the case for trial, implicitly endorsing Nigeria’s jurisdiction. Unlike the Dikko case, where no trial proceeded due to the failed kidnapping, Kanu is physically in Nigeria and faces serious charges like treasonable felony and terrorism, which are grounded in Nigerian law (e.g., Terrorism Prevention Act 2011). Dismissing these charges solely on rendition grounds risks creating a loophole where grave offenses go unpunished. - Extraordinary Rendition Does Not Automatically Nullify Trials
Ejimakor cites international law to argue that extraordinary rendition invalidates prosecutorial power. While rendition violates norms like the UN Convention Against Torture, international case law—e.g., the U.S. case United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992)—shows that courts may still proceed with trials if the defendant is present and due process is followed. Nigeria’s judiciary has mechanisms, such as the ongoing trial-within-trial to assess Kanu’s alleged confessions, to ensure fairness. Ejimakor’s call to halt the trial entirely dismisses these safeguards and assumes bad faith without evidence that the judicial process itself is corrupted beyond the rendition. - Monitoring the Trial Promotes Accountability, Not Complicity
Ejimakor criticizes those monitoring Kanu’s trial, claiming it legitimizes an unlawful process. On the contrary, civil society oversight ensures transparency and pressures the judiciary to adhere to due process. Groups monitoring the trial—such as human rights organizations—aim to hold the government accountable, not endorse its actions. Their presence could expose any procedural flaws, benefiting Kanu’s defense. Dismissing these efforts as misguided ignores their role in upholding fairness, especially given Kanu’s history of alleging judicial bias, which led to Justice Binta Nyako’s recusal in 2024. - National Security Concerns Justify Prosecution
Kanu’s charges stem from IPOB’s activities, including alleged incitement of violence and attacks on security forces, which have destabilized southeastern Nigeria. The prosecution argues that Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and IPOB’s “sit-at-home” orders fueled unrest, with tangible impacts like economic disruption and loss of life. Ejimakor’s demand for Kanu’s immediate release sidesteps these allegations, which the state views as threats to national unity. While rendition raises ethical questions, abandoning the trial could embolden separatist actions and weaken Nigeria’s ability to address security challenges in a volatile region. - The #MNKOct20 Campaign Risks Escalating Tensions
Ejimakor’s push for the #MNKOct20 campaign to demand Kanu’s release may inflame already tense relations in Nigeria’s southeast. IPOB’s history of confrontations with security forces has led to violence, including reported clashes during sit-at-home orders. A mass mobilization targeting Aso Rock could provoke a heavy-handed government response, further polarizing the region and undermining dialogue. A legal resolution through the courts, however imperfect, offers a structured path to address Kanu’s case without risking broader conflict.
Concluding, Briggs averred that Ejimakor’s argument hinges on the moral and legal outrage of Kanu’s rendition but overlooks Nigeria’s sovereign right to prosecute serious crimes, the judiciary’s capacity to ensure due process, and the broader implications of halting the trial. Rather than dismissing the trial as illegitimate, stakeholders should focus on ensuring it meets international standards of fairness while addressing the underlying security concerns. The #MNKOct20 campaign, while emotionally compelling, risks derailing a legal process that could clarify Kanu’s culpability or exoneration. Continued trial monitoring and advocacy for judicial reform are more constructive than calls to abandon the case entirely.
Consequently, the forum is disassociating the entire Niger Delta region from the protest anchored by Sowore and his co-travelers
