The legal team representing the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has threatened legal action against Chigozie Nnabugwu and News Central Television over comments it claims amounted to a call for Kanu’s extrajudicial killing.
In a statement issued on Tuesday and signed by Kanu’s Special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, the legal team criticised remarks allegedly made by Nnabugwu during a programme aired on News Central TV, in which he was said to have urged the Federal Government to kill Kanu, claiming it would restore normalcy to the South-East.
According to the statement, a video of the programme was posted on News Central Television’s verified X account on July 19 and later circulated widely on social media.
Kanu’s lawyers described the remarks as reckless, irresponsible, and unlawful, arguing that they constituted a threat to their client’s life and had the potential to incite violence and undermine public order.
They further contended that the comments could amount to an offence under Section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act, which criminalises the deliberate transmission of electronic messages that threaten life or are capable of causing a breakdown of law and order.
The legal team also maintained that the remarks could attract additional liability under the Criminal Code, alleging that they amounted to incitement to violence.
The statement further accused News Central Television of providing a platform for inflammatory comments, warning that the broadcaster could face regulatory consequences for allegedly violating broadcasting rules relating to incitement and public order.
According to the lawyers, airing comments advocating an extrajudicial killing while Kanu’s case remains before the courts could also amount to contempt of court.
They disclosed that they were considering all available legal remedies, including filing formal complaints with the relevant authorities.
The legal team demanded an immediate public retraction from Nnabugwu and an unconditional televised apology from News Central Television for broadcasting the remarks.
It added that the statement should be regarded as a pre-action notice, warning that legal proceedings would be initiated if both the television station and the guest failed to take immediate corrective steps.
BACKSTORY:
Nnamdi Kanu is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a separatist group that advocates for the creation of an independent state of Biafra from Nigeria’s South-East region. IPOB was designated a terrorist organisation by a Federal High Court in 2017, a decision the group has consistently rejected, maintaining that it is a peaceful self-determination movement.
Kanu has been at the centre of one of Nigeria’s most closely followed legal and political cases. After leaving Nigeria in 2017, he was re-arrested in June 2021 and returned to the country to face charges bordering on terrorism and other offences brought by the Federal Government. His arrest and continued detention have generated widespread legal and political debate, with supporters demanding his release and the Federal Government insisting that the judicial process should be allowed to run its course.
Throughout the proceedings, Kanu’s legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, has repeatedly challenged aspects of the prosecution, detention, and public commentary surrounding the case. The lawyers have also warned against statements they believe could prejudice ongoing court proceedings or endanger their client’s safety.
The latest controversy stems from comments allegedly made during a television programme, which Kanu’s legal team claims amounted to a call for his extrajudicial killing. The lawyers argue that such remarks could incite violence and interfere with the administration of justice, particularly while legal proceedings involving Kanu remain active.
The development highlights the sensitivity of public discussions surrounding high-profile criminal cases in Nigeria. Legal practitioners and media organisations are generally expected to exercise caution to avoid statements that could be interpreted as prejudicial to ongoing proceedings, incite violence, or undermine the rule of law. Whether the comments amount to any legal wrongdoing will ultimately be determined through the appropriate legal and regulatory processes.
