Convicting Nnamdi Kanu while Sheikh Gumi walks freely, clear case of selective justice – Nigerian lawyer

Convicting Nnamdi Kanu While Sheikh Gumi Walks Freely - A Clear Case of Selective Justice

The recent conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has ignited a storm of controversy in Nigeria’s legal and political landscape.

Kanu was sentenced to life imprisonment on terrorism charges by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja. His conviction has been described by constitutional lawyer and political analyst Malcolm Emokiniovo Omirhobo as a glaring example of selective justice in Nigeria’s judicial system.

Omirhobo argues that while Kanu has been arrested, detained, tried, and convicted, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, a prominent Islamic cleric, continues to walk freely despite his open association with armed bandit groups.

Gumi has repeatedly entered bandit enclaves, negotiated with terrorists, defended their actions in public, and positioned himself as their spokesperson. Yet, he has never been invited for questioning by law enforcement agencies. 

This contradiction, according to Omirhobo, is not only morally indefensible but also unconstitutional. He cites Sections 17, 36, and 42 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, equal protection for all citizens, and freedom from discrimination in law enforcement.

The lawyer’s statement underscores what he describes as Nigeria’s “two-tiered justice system.” On one hand, individuals like Kanu are prosecuted with ruthless efficiency, while on the other, figures such as Gumi, who openly fraternize with groups responsible for mass killings, kidnappings, and terror across the country, remain untouched. 

This disparity, Omirhobo insists, erodes public trust in the judiciary and deepens the perception of injustice. He labels the government’s approach as discriminatory, warning that such selective application of justice threatens Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

The conviction has also drawn criticism from rights activists, who argue that some of the allegations used against Kanu, such as claims that he ordered attacks on U.S. and U.K. embassies, were never part of the charges filed against him. They contend that the judgment was flawed and politically motivated, further fueling the debate about whether Kanu’s trial was fair or simply a tool to silence dissent.

Meanwhile, public discourse has intensified around the question: Why is Nnamdi Kanu in prison while Sheikh Gumi walks freely? Many Nigerians see this as evidence of double standards in the government’s handling of national security and justice. 

Supporters of Kanu argue that his incarceration is politically driven, while critics maintain that the law must take its course regardless of political implications.

The contrasting treatment of Nnamdi Kanu and Sheikh Gumi has become a symbol of Nigeria’s broader struggle with justice, equality, and governance. 

For Omirhobo and other critics, it is a stark reminder that selective justice undermines the rule of law and perpetuates divisions within the country. 

The debate is far from over, and the implications of this case will likely reverberate across Nigeria’s political and legal systems for years to come.