By Chinomso Queen Okezie
- Author’s Credibility Problem:
Ope Banwo, self-styled “Mayor of Fadeyi,” fancies himself a techpreneur and “political commentator.” What he really is, is a loudmouthed opportunist trying to please his masters in the Tinubu regime by attacking Omoyele Sowore and the cause of justice for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
It takes a special kind of moral blindness to defend prolonged illegal detention in 2025 and still claim to be an advocate of democracy.
How can a lawyer of any learning or conscience equate a court-discharged citizen with proven terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Salah Abdeslam?
This is beyond ignorance; it is deliberate malice.
- False Premise: “Kanu Is Charged with Terrorism”:
Let us begin where Ope Banwo’s entire argument collapses — Kanu is not charged with terrorism.
The seven-count charge against him (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015) contains no single count of committing or participating in any terrorist act under the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act (TPAA) 2013.
He is charged only with uttering, broadcasting, and possessing equipment (microphone and laptops) allegedly used for secessionist propagation — none of which constitutes “terrorism” under Nigerian or international law.
Even the Court of Appeal (per Justice Jummai Hanatu Sankey, JCA) held unequivocally in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu v. FRN (CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, 13 Oct 2022) that the entire trial was a nullity because he was illegally abducted and extra-ordinarily renditioned from Kenya — a process the Court described as a flagrant violation of international law.
Thus, Ope Banwo’s comparison to Guantánamo or Paris terror suspects is not only ignorant but maliciously deceptive.
- The Fallacy of “National Security Excuse”:
Banwo lists the United States, France, and others as if citing examples of tyranny somehow justifies Nigeria’s own.
But every serious jurist knows that national security cannot legalize illegality.
In Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1296) 199 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution is supreme and any action inconsistent with it is void, even if cloaked in national security language.
By defending prolonged detention despite court orders, Ope Banwo indirectly argues that lawlessness is acceptable if the offender is Igbo.
That is the unspoken racism and hypocrisy behind his piece.
- Kanu’s “Videos” Are Not Evidence of Crime:
Banwo parrots government propaganda: “We saw him inspecting armed recruits and calling them soldiers.”
Where? When?
If such “evidence” existed, why has the prosecution — after nine years and five amended charges — failed to tender even one admissible video or firearm?
Every “Biafra Secret Service” clip online is a misattributed montage produced by Nigeria’s propaganda department. The DSS has never tendered a forensic copy, never shown chain of custody, and never produced a single weapon or soldier of that so-called service.
Yet this same Ope Banwo believes “we saw it on YouTube” is evidence of guilt.
This is not law — it’s mob logic.
- The Supreme Court Never Reversed His Discharge:
Another deliberate lie that Ope Banwo and other regime apologists keep repeating is that “the Supreme Court overturned Kanu’s release.”
False.
The Supreme Court in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022, 15 Dec 2023) merely held that the manner of rendition, though illegal, does not rob the Federal High Court of jurisdiction — an opinion openly criticized by senior jurists for contradicting binding precedents like Ogbomor v. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 223 and Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228.
But even that controversial decision did not nullify the earlier appellate discharge — it only remitted the matter for continuation of trial.
Hence, Kanu remains legally discharged until the lower court takes jurisdiction properly — which it has not.
- Comparing a Separatist to Terrorists Exposes Deep Moral Rot:
Ope Banwo calls for “pardon for murderous Fulani herders” while supporting indefinite detention of a man whose only weapon is a microphone. This is moral bankruptcy.
How can you free killers with blood on their hands and jail a man who speaks about self-determination — a right recognized by Article 20(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, domesticated as Cap A9 LFN 2004?
Kanu has never killed, maimed, or ordered violence. Every court that has handled his matter — from Justice Binta Nyako’s own rulings to the Court of Appeal — has admitted that the state has no proof of violent conduct.
So why is Ope Banwo more outraged by the voice of freedom than by the machete of the killer herder that continue to slaughter Yoruba villagers in droves in Kwara and Kogi states?
- Sowore’s Call Is Not a Distraction — It’s a Moral Imperative:
Banwo sneers that Sowore’s demand for Kanu’s release is “a wrong battlefield.”
But history shows that every major democratic turning point began with freeing a conscience prisoner:
Mandela’s release changed South Africa.
Gandhi’s releases birthed India’s freedom.
Martin Luther King’s release galvanized America’s civil rights movement.
Justice for one political prisoner is justice for all. To say “focus on bread prices instead of liberty” is moral illiteracy. Bread may fill the stomach, but justice feeds the soul of a nation.
- His “Global Examples” Backfire Horribly:
Ope Banwo lists Guantánamo, Turkey, and India as if those nations are models of justice. Yet every example he cited is globally condemned:
The UN Human Rights Council called Guantánamo “a legal black hole.”
The European Court of Human Rights ordered Turkey to release Demirtaş and called his detention “politically motivated.”
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention faulted India’s Kashmir detentions.
In other words, the “examples” he cites are global scandals, not precedents to emulate.
By citing them, Banwo essentially argues: because others commit injustice, Nigeria too must remain unjust.
That is the logic of a colonized mind.
- His “Ethnic Irredentist” Label Is Both Racist and Intellectually Bankrupt:
To call Kanu “an ethnic irredentist” while ignoring Fulani supremacist expansionism, bandit amnesty, and Boko Haram reintegration exposes his ethnic bias.
If the call for self-determination by Igbos is “irredentism,” what then is the Fulani herder invasion of Benue, Plateau, and Southern Kaduna? A picnic?
Kanu’s advocacy — whether one agrees or not — is rooted in constitutional and international law. Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression. Article 20 of the African Charter guarantees the right of peoples to self-determination.
So Ope Banwo’s “ethnic” framing only reveals his hatred of justice clothed in pseudo-patriotism.
- Final Verdict: Ope Banwo’s Essay Is a Propaganda Trash Pamphlet Masquerading as Commentary:
This piece is not scholarship; it is a regime brief disguised as analysis. It ignores law, suppresses facts, and glorifies tyranny.
If Banwo were half as concerned about Nigeria’s “unity” as he claims, he would be condemning the extraordinary rendition of a Nigerian citizen, not applauding it.
If he truly believed in justice, he would be calling for the prosecution of those who abducted Kanu in violation of Kenyan sovereignty and Nigerian court orders.
Instead, he calls for silence — for the acceptance of injustice — because the victim is Igbo.
Such hypocrisy is why God forsakes nations: not because they sin, but because they celebrate sin as strategy.
Conclusion:
Ope Banwo’s essay is an embarrassment to the legal profession and a moral disgrace to civic intellect.
No amount of pseudo-comparative reasoning can justify illegal detention, flagrant disobedience of court orders, or ethnic bias masquerading as patriotism.
History will remember those who spoke for the voiceless — not those who justified chains.
And when Nigeria is finally free from the curse of injustice, Ope Banwo’s name will stand as a footnote in the long list of those who sold truth for comfort.
Barrister Chinomso Queen Okezie, a member of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, is an Unuahia based Human Rights Lawyer.
