In a sharp rebuke, former presidential aide Reno Omokri has challenged the claims made by Labour Party (LP) flagbearer Peter Obi regarding the continued detention of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Omokri asserted that Obi’s statements about a court order for Kanu’s release were false and amounted to the spreading of IPOB propaganda.
Obi had called on the Federal Government to release Kanu, stating that the courts had granted him bail and that the rule of law must be upheld. However, Omokri countered this assertion, stating that there is no subsisting court order directing Kanu’s release from the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Citing specific court rulings, Omokri pointed out that in a unanimous decision on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Kanu had a case to answer for the charge of treason. Furthermore, on May 20, 2024, the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered that Kanu should be denied bail.
Omokri emphasized the stark contrast between Kanu’s case and that of Sunday Adeyemo, also known as Igboho. While Igboho was freed by a Beninoise court and further protected by the ECOWAS court, Kanu’s situation is markedly different. Omokri noted that Kanu had made public broadcasts instructing his supporters to kill officers and men of Nigeria’s military and paramilitary forces, and that unknown gunmen suspected to be IPOB members had subsequently killed over one hundred security personnel in the Southeast.
The former presidential aide challenged Obi and his supporters, the “Obidients,” to provide evidence of a subsequent court order that counters the Supreme Court’s judgment and the Federal High Court’s ruling. Omokri stated that he would pay $10,000 to the first person who could produce such a judgment, emphasizing the need for factual accuracy and the avoidance of IPOB propaganda.
Omokri’s strong rebuttal of Obi’s claims underscores the ongoing tensions and complexities surrounding the Nnamdi Kanu case. The former presidential aide’s insistence on adherence to the rule of law and the presentation of factual evidence highlights the importance of maintaining a balanced and objective perspective on this sensitive issue.
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether Obi or his supporters will be able to provide the evidence Omokri has challenged them to produce. In the meantime, the public discourse on Kanu’s detention and the broader issues surrounding the IPOB movement is likely to continue, with both sides seeking to sway public opinion and influence the narrative.
