Rotimi Fasan, that rented pen of ethnic bigotry and half-digested op-eds, has once again soiled the pages of Vanguard with his venomous screed titled “Nnamdi Kanu has a case to answer.” In it, this self-anointed oracle of “justice” peddles a toxic brew of anti-Igbo sentiment, factual illiteracy, and legal hallucination, all while ignoring the seismic shifts in Nigerian jurisprudence that render his entire rant as obsolete as the colonial warrants he seems to idolize. Fasan, a man who mistakes courtroom tantrums for legal analysis and equates a freedom fighter with Boko Haram’s ghosts, should be ashamed – but shame requires a spine, which his tribal vendetta has long atrophied. Today, as counsel to the indomitable Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, I dismantle this junk with the surgical precision of a scalpel: one incision at a time, exposing the rot of ignorance beneath his rented rhetoric. Read Nigerian law, Fasan – or better yet, retire to the library you clearly avoid.
- The Ghost of a Repealed Law: Fasan’s Charges Haunt a Dead Statute
Fasan’s magnum opus clings desperately to the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, under which Mazi Kanu is absurdly charged – as if dredging up a cadaver could resurrect a trial. He rants about “sponsoring attacks” and “hate utterances” as if this zombie legislation still walks the earth. Newsflash, Fasan: that Act was repealed in toto by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, assented to by President Muhammadu Buhari on May 12, 2022. Section 98(1) of the 2022 Act explicitly abolishes the 2013 version, rendering every count against Mazi Kanu – from “incitement” to “secessionism” – a legal nullity. No savings clause resurrects these charges; they evaporated like your credibility the moment the new law came into force.
Mazi Kanu himself filed a motion on October 30, 2025, challenging the prosecution’s reliance on this repealed relic, arguing it strips the court of jurisdiction under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which mandates fair hearing on subsisting laws. Yet Fasan, in his blissful ignorance, pretends the 2013 Act is “established law.” This isn’t analysis, Fasan; it’s malpractice. A public commentator who can’t distinguish a live statute from a legislative corpse has no business commenting on trials – stick to fiction, where your fabrications might pass as plot twists.
- Jurisdiction? A Court Without Legs Cannot Stride: The Rendition Abyss
Ah, the jurisdiction canard – Fasan’s feeble dismissal of Mazi Kanu’s ironclad challenge as “stalling tactics” and “juvenile behaviour.” He sneers at the “illegal rendition” argument, claiming it “does not absolve” crimes, and invokes extraordinary rendition as a “favoured counter-terrorism weapon” post-9/11, complete with waterboarding apologetics. What a grotesque spectacle: Fasan, the armchair torturer, greenlighting abductions while lecturing on international law he manifestly hasn’t cracked.
Let’s school you, Fasan, in what law is: not your fever-dream realpolitik, but black-letter rules that bind even the mighty. Mazi Kanu was abducted from Kenya on June 27, 2021 – not “rendered” with due process, but snatched like a common chattel, in flagrant violation of the Extradition Act Cap. E25 LFN 2004, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ratified by Nigeria), and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. No Kenyan warrant, no bilateral treaty invocation, no mutual legal assistance – just DSS goons playing cowboy in Nairobi. The Kenyan High Court, in a landmark ruling on June 24, 2025, declared this abduction illegal, ordering reparations and affirming that Mazi Kanu’s forcible return breached Kenya’s sovereignty and extradition protocols.
Enter the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, the extant law Fasan conveniently ignores. Section 76(1)(d)(iii) – that very provision you “public commentators” should “spend some time reading” – vests jurisdiction in the Federal High Court for offences “outside Nigeria… by a Nigerian, if the person’s conduct would also constitute an offence under a law of the country where the offence was committed.” Translation: For Mazi Kanu, a Nigerian national allegedly acting abroad, Nigeria’s courts can only entertain the matter if his “conduct” (i.e., the alleged offences) aligns with Kenyan criminal law and was validated through proper extradition channels under Section 89 of the 2022 Act (which mandates treaty-based surrender for terrorism trials). No such validation exists – Kenya protested the abduction, not “facilitated” it as your fantasy suggests. Without it, Justice Binta Nyako (and now the hapless Justice Omotosho) sits on a throne of sand: no jurisdiction, no trial.
Fasan whimpers that “Kenya… has not complained” and the UK (Mazi Kanu’s citizenship holder) stays silent. Lie upon lie! Kenya’s 2025 judgment is a roaring indictment, and the UK downgraded ties post-abduction, echoing the 1984 Dikko scandal you half-remember. Even Nigeria’s Appeal Court, in FRN v. Kanu (2022), quashed initial charges and DISCHARGED Kanu on rendition grounds, only for the trial to limp on under the dead 2013 Act, courtesy of Supreme Court’s error and failure to judicially notice the repealed law as mandated by Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. Omotosho may pretend all he likes, but a court without jurisdiction is a circus without a ringmaster – entertaining, but utterly void. Madukolum v. Nkemdilim (1962) SCNJ 341; AG Lagos State v Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552. Basic con law, Fasan – try Google next time.
- Sentiments Over Substance: Fasan’s Tribal Venom Exposed
Your piece drips with the ugliest strain of Nigerian bigotry: equating Mazi Kanu, a Biafran self-determination icon, with Shekau and Turji while lionizing Igboho as a “self-determination activist.” Why the double standard? Because Kanu dares invoke Igbo marginalization, “a sense of political lack” you mock but can’t refute. You crow about “inter-ethnic conflict” from Radio Biafra, ignoring how those broadcasts amplified #EndSARS against police brutality – a cause even your paymasters quietly cheered. And “victims of his armed campaign”? The South-East’s insecurity manifested in 2022 whilst Kanu was in detention and stems from state actors, not one man’s voice. Your “harmattan fire” metaphor? A lazy arsonist’s excuse to blame the whistleblower, not the pyromaniacs in Aso Rock.
Fasan, this isn’t commentary; it’s a hit job. You shame Mazi Kanu’s “tantrums” while glorifying DSS detention as “well-fed justice.” He added weight? Bravo – next you’ll cite his haircut as evidence of guilt. No torture? Tell that to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which in 2022 deemed his detention arbitrary. Your call for “justice” for “millions” is code for vengeance against an Igbo son who exposes the federation’s fractures. Tribal anti-Igbo sentiment, indeed – not law.
Verdict: Junk to the Dustbin; Truth Endures
Rotimi Fasan, your article is not just wrong; it’s a public embarrassment, a half-baked screed from a man who confuses prejudice with prose. Mazi Kanu faces no “case to answer” – only a politically orchestrated persecution under laws that no longer bind and courts that dare not look. On November 20, when Omotosho’s judgment drops (unless deferred, as Mazi’s latest motion demands), the world will see this trial for the sham it is: rendition without remedy, charges without currency, jurisdiction without foundation.
To Fasan and his ilk: Read the laws you ignorantly malign till you understand them. Engage a good lawyer before you embarrass yourselves further. And to the Nigerian Bar Association: Silence is complicity. Mazi Kanu is innocent; his freedom is justice. The Biafran flame you fear burns brighter for your extinguishing efforts.
Demand Mazi’s unconditional release. #FreeNnamdiKanuNow.
Barrister Christopher Chidera
for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium.
