First-term Labour Party lawmaker, Obi Aguocha, has accused elements within Nigeria’s Yoruba community of orchestrating a perceived “conspiracy” against IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, framing his ongoing terrorism and treasonable felony trial as a proxy for ethnic tensions between Yoruba and Igbo groups.
Aguocha, representing Umuahia North/Umuahia South/Ikwuano Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, spoke during a live broadcast following dramatic courtroom developments where Kanu abruptly dismissed his legal team and opted to defend himself. The session, held at the Federal High Court in Abuja, has drawn widespread scrutiny amid claims of procedural unfairness.
During the Arise Tv interview, Aguocha pointed to the ethnic composition of key figures in the case as evidence of systemic bias. “The judge is Yoruba, the prosecution team, all of them are Yoruba, the Attorney-General is Yoruba, Mr. President is Yoruba,” he stated emphatically. He argued that this lineup fosters a “reality” of targeted persecution against Kanu, an Igbo separatist leader, suggesting it evokes “a new civil war between the Yoruba and the Igbos.”
Pressed by the host on whether this constituted a conspiracy or merely a perception, Aguocha doubled down: “If you look at the way it is going and they are resilient and adamant in seeing that Nnamdi Kanu is not given adequate provisions of time, adequate facilities to ensure that he has adequate provisions for his defense… one may have the perception that it is a conspiracy of a few Yoruba people against the Igbos.”
He cited specific grievances, including the court’s alleged rush to proceed with Kanu’s defense just five days after the prosecution rested its case despite constitutional guarantees under Section 366B for fair hearing and preparation time in capital offenses. Aguocha warned that such haste could render the trial “annulled,” particularly as Kanu has summoned 23 witnesses whose compliance may require subpoenas.
The lawmaker dismissed counterarguments of paranoia, insisting the ethnic dynamics undermine judicial impartiality. “It’s not fair, the injustice that is being meted out,” he added, referencing jurisdictional issues and the judge’s recent ruling limiting Kanu’s access to lawyers, which he claimed could still allow eavesdropping in the courtroom setting.
Aguocha’s remarks come amid broader unrest in Kanu’s case, including the arrest of his activist lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor (referred to as “Jimo” in the interview), for participating in pro-Kanu protests, and the detention of protest organizer Maxwell Okwu. He decried what he called “two sets of rules” in Nigeria’s justice system—one for Igbo individuals and another for others—invoking Section 40 of the Constitution, which protects rights to peaceful assembly.
The comments have sparked immediate backlash online, with critics labeling them divisive and unsubstantiated, while supporters hail them as a bold call against ethnic favoritism in federal institutions. Neither the Attorney-General’s office nor the Federal High Court has responded to requests for comment as of press time.
Aguocha, a vocal Kanu advocate who frequently attends court sessions, reiterated his commitment to Labour Party principles but framed the issue as a national test of equity. “It shouldn’t be like that,” he said of the perceived ethnic framing, urging focus on jurisprudential fairness over tribal lines.
Leave a Comment