Politics

Tinubu can intervene in Nnamdi Kanu’s trial, Onoh counters Wesley

Contrary to President Bola Tinubu’s Special Assistant on community engagement (southeast), Mrs. Chioma Wesley’s defence on why the President was yet to intervene on the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, former spokesman of the President in the south east, Denge Josef Onoh has said that she was wrong in her assertion. Wesley has said that President Tinubu was yet to intervene on the ongoing trial and loud clamour for the political solution to the debacle of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) because there is Judicial process on motion. But Onoh faulted Wesley’s defence, stating the truth is that Nigerian presidents have repeatedly exercised their constitutional and prerogative powers to engage in ongoing judicial processes, particularly in cases involving separatist agitations, ethnic tensions, and national unity, precisely in the context of Nnamdi Kanu’s detention. Onoh stressed that such interventions do not equate to subverting the courts but rather complement them by fostering dialogue, offering political solutions, or directing administrative actions that align with judicial outcomes. Onoh said that such statement is not only an oversimplification but a potentially damaging narrative that ignores the nuanced powers of the presidency, historical precedents, and the fragile political dynamics in the region. “This explanation risks reinforcing existing biases against President Tinubu in the South-East, undermining the painstaking image-building efforts of the APC and the President—efforts to which individuals like himself have devoted over three years, yielding tangible gains such as the APC’s unprecedented second-place finish in the recent Anambra governorship election and the landmark defection of Enugu State Governor Peter Mbah to the APC. “Mrs. Wesley’s position, while well-intentioned, appears detached from the ground realities of South-East yearnings. It dismisses the possibility of presidential intervention as if the executive branch operates in a vacuum, separate from the judiciary in matters of national reconciliation and security. “The 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests the President with executive authority under Sections 4, 5, and 140, including the power to grant prerogative of mercy (Section 175), pardon offenses, or facilitate negotiations that expedite resolutions without prejudice to ongoing trials. These tools have been invoked historically to de-escalate crises, even while cases remain sub judice.” Onoh went on to provide verifiable Instances of Nigerian Presidents Intervening in Judicial Matters, providing clear, documented examples where presidents have intervened in cases before the courts, demonstrating that the executive can and does play a constructive role without violating the rule of law. Onoh said that these actions often prioritize peace, equity, and federal character—principles that are especially relevant to the South-East’s marginalization concerns and the IPOB leader’s prolonged detention since 2021. “For avoidance of doubt, amid escalating ethno-religious violence in Plateau State, President Obasanjo declared a state of emergency on May 18, 2004, under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution. This suspended the state’s governor (Joshua Dariye), deputy, and House of Assembly—actions that were immediately challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional overreach into judicial and legislative domains. “Despite the pending litigation, Obasanjo appointed an administrator (Gen. Chris Alli) and proceeded with governance reforms. The Supreme Court eventually heard the case but did not halt the emergency measures, affirming the President’s discretionary powers in crises. This intervention stabilized the state, prevented further bloodshed, and was upheld as a necessary executive prerogative, even as courts deliberated. It shows how presidents can act decisively in judicially contested matters for national interest. “Shortly after assuming office, Obasanjo inaugurated the Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission (Oputa Panel) in June 1999 to probe abuses during military rule (1966–1999), including high-profile cases like the assassination of Ken Saro-Wiwa, which were already in various judicial pipelines or appeals. “Former military leaders such as Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar challenged the panel’s subpoena powers in the Supreme Court in 2001–2003, arguing it interfered with ongoing or potential prosecutions. “Facing a surge in oil bunkering and militancy cases in the Niger Delta—many of which were before courts on charges of terrorism and economic sabotage, President Goodluck Jonathan expanded a Presidential Amnesty Programme in 2010. This included conditional releases, vocational training, and reintegration for over 26,000 militants, even as trials continued in federal high courts. For instance, interventions in cases like that of Government Ekpemupolo (Tompolo), charged with arms trafficking in 2009, led to dropped charges and amnesty deals post-conviction negotiations. “Jonathan’s actions, under his executive powers to manage security (Section 5), de-escalated violence and boosted oil production by 20%, despite criticisms of judicial interference. The Supreme Court implicitly endorsed such programs by not invalidating them, highlighting the President’s role in parallel political resolutions. “Ironically, during Buhari’s tenure—when Kanu was first rearrested in 2021—South-East leaders petitioned for his release amid ongoing treason trials at the Federal High Court. Buhari publicly acknowledged these pleas in a January 2022 Channels TV interview, stating he was “not ruling out a political solution,” while emphasizing judicial process. “Though no release occurred, this overt executive signaling opened dialogue channels, influenced court adjournments for negotiations, and aligned with UN Human Rights Working Group recommendations (2022) for Kanu’s unconditional release on arbitrary detention grounds. It demonstrates that even in Kanu’s specific case, presidential intervention was contemplated without court disruption. “Most recently President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, invoking Section 305 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended). This measure suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for an initial six-month period. The declaration was prompted by a prolonged political crisis in the oil-rich state, exacerbated by pipeline vandalism, militant activities. Yet their were court cases pending in different courts. “These examples—drawn from official records, Supreme Court judgments, and media archives—illustrate that presidential interventions are not taboo but a vital tool for balancing justice with peace. They occur through pardons, amnesties, emergency declarations, or mediated dialogues, often while cases proceed.” Onoh stated that Mrs. Wesley’s blanket assertion overlooks this, suggesting an absolutist view of separation of powers that contradicts Nigeria’s federal practice. He further said that Mrs. Wesley’s Explanation creates a narrative of bias because it reduces a complex socio-political issue to a simplistic legalism, ignoring the South-East’s deep-seated grievances over marginalization, insecurity, and Kanu’s four-year detention without bail. “By framing non-intervention as unassailable rule of law adherence, it paints President Tinubu as indifferent or rigid—fueling a narrative of bias that alienates a region already skeptical of his administration due to perceived northern favoritism. This is not mere optics; it erodes trust at a time when the South-East seeks inclusive governance. Her explanation fails to acknowledge the President’s moral and political duty under Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution to promote unity, or his platform in the 2023 elections to “renew hope” through reconciliation. “Moreover, as someone appointed to engage South-East communities, Mrs. Wesley’s detachment is concerning. I doubt if she has resided in the region long enough to grasp its pulse—the daily fears of IPOB-ESN clashes, economic boycotts, and calls for Kanu’s release as a peace gesture. I advise her to spend at least one year living among us in the South-East to truly advise on our yearnings, rather than issuing Abuja-centric platitudes that risk reversal of hard-won progress. “For over three years, I have labored tirelessly to rebrand the APC and President Tinubu in the South-East, countering narratives of exclusion. My advocacy has promoted his “Renewed Hope” agenda through town halls, youth engagements, and economic outreach, yielding breakthroughs “The APC’s Nicholas Ukachukwu secured second place with 99,445 votes statewide—a historic feat, surpassing previous third- or lower finishes (e.g., 2017’s 5th place). In his home LGA (Nnewi South), APC polled 9,281 votes, signaling growing acceptance. This shift, from APGA’s dominance, reflects our grassroots efforts aligning Tinubu’s vision with local aspirations. “My state Governor Bar. Peter Mbah, elected under PDP in 2023, led his entire cabinet, 17 LGA chairmen, assembly members, and 80% of PDP executives to APC, ending PDP’s 26-year grip. Mbah cited alignment with Tinubu’s reforms as key, boosting APC to control three South-East states (adding to Imo and Ebonyi). This mass movement validates my promotion of federal inclusion. “These milestones—unthinkable without sustained advocacy—demonstrate APC’s rising viability in a PDP/Labour stronghold. Mrs. Wesley’s comments, however, risk squandering this momentum by portraying the President as aloof, further entrenching biases and complicating 2027 outreach. “In conclusion, I urge Mrs. Wesley to recalibrate her messaging toward empathy and possibility, emphasizing the President’s commitment to holistic justice. President Tinubu can and should explore interventions—be it dialogue facilitation or conditional amnesty—to honor court processes while healing divides. This is not weakness but statesmanship. The South-East stands ready for partnership; let us not forfeit it through avoidable missteps,” Onoh advised.

Urowayino Jeremiah • November 11, 2025

Tinubu can intervene in Nnamdi Kanu’s trial, Onoh counters Wesley

Wesley has said that President Tinubu was yet to intervene on the ongoing trial and loud clamour for the political solution to the debacle of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) because there is Judicial process on motion.

But Onoh faulted Wesley’s defence, stating the truth is that Nigerian presidents have repeatedly exercised their constitutional and prerogative powers to engage in ongoing judicial processes, particularly in cases involving separatist agitations, ethnic tensions, and national unity, precisely in the context of Nnamdi Kanu’s detention.

Onoh stressed that such interventions do not equate to subverting the courts but rather complement them by fostering dialogue, offering political solutions, or directing administrative actions that align with judicial outcomes.

Onoh said that such statement is not only an oversimplification but a potentially damaging narrative that ignores the nuanced powers of the presidency, historical precedents, and the fragile political dynamics in the region.

“This explanation risks reinforcing existing biases against President Tinubu in the South-East, undermining the painstaking image-building efforts of the APC and the President—efforts to which individuals like himself have devoted over three years, yielding tangible gains such as the APC’s unprecedented second-place finish in the recent Anambra governorship election and the landmark defection of Enugu State Governor Peter Mbah to the APC.

“Mrs. Wesley’s position, while well-intentioned, appears detached from the ground realities of South-East yearnings. It dismisses the possibility of presidential intervention as if the executive branch operates in a vacuum, separate from the judiciary in matters of national reconciliation and security.

“The 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests the President with executive authority under Sections 4, 5, and 140, including the power to grant prerogative of mercy (Section 175), pardon offenses, or facilitate negotiations that expedite resolutions without prejudice to ongoing trials. These tools have been invoked historically to de-escalate crises, even while cases remain sub judice.”

Onoh went on to provide verifiable Instances of Nigerian Presidents Intervening in Judicial Matters, providing clear, documented examples where presidents have intervened in cases before the courts, demonstrating that the executive can and does play a constructive role without violating the rule of law.

Onoh said that these actions often prioritize peace, equity, and federal character—principles that are especially relevant to the South-East’s marginalization concerns and the IPOB leader’s prolonged detention since 2021.

“For avoidance of doubt, amid escalating ethno-religious violence in Plateau State, President Obasanjo declared a state of emergency on May 18, 2004, under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution. This suspended the state’s governor (Joshua Dariye), deputy, and House of Assembly—actions that were immediately challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional overreach into judicial and legislative domains.

“Despite the pending litigation, Obasanjo appointed an administrator (Gen. Chris Alli) and proceeded with governance reforms. The Supreme Court eventually heard the case but did not halt the emergency measures, affirming the President’s discretionary powers in crises. This intervention stabilized the state, prevented further bloodshed, and was upheld as a necessary executive prerogative, even as courts deliberated. It shows how presidents can act decisively in judicially contested matters for national interest.

“Shortly after assuming office, Obasanjo inaugurated the Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission (Oputa Panel) in June 1999 to probe abuses during military rule (1966–1999), including high-profile cases like the assassination of Ken Saro-Wiwa, which were already in various judicial pipelines or appeals.

“Former military leaders such as Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar challenged the panel’s subpoena powers in the Supreme Court in 2001–2003, arguing it interfered with ongoing or potential prosecutions.

“Facing a surge in oil bunkering and militancy cases in the Niger Delta—many of which were before courts on charges of terrorism and economic sabotage, President Goodluck Jonathan expanded a Presidential Amnesty Programme in 2010. This included conditional releases, vocational training, and reintegration for over 26,000 militants, even as trials continued in federal high courts. For instance, interventions in cases like that of Government Ekpemupolo (Tompolo), charged with arms trafficking in 2009, led to dropped charges and amnesty deals post-conviction negotiations.

“Jonathan’s actions, under his executive powers to manage security (Section 5), de-escalated violence and boosted oil production by 20%, despite criticisms of judicial interference. The Supreme Court implicitly endorsed such programs by not invalidating them, highlighting the President’s role in parallel political resolutions.

“Ironically, during Buhari’s tenure—when Kanu was first rearrested in 2021—South-East leaders petitioned for his release amid ongoing treason trials at the Federal High Court. Buhari publicly acknowledged these pleas in a January 2022 Channels TV interview, stating he was “not ruling out a political solution,” while emphasizing judicial process.

“Though no release occurred, this overt executive signaling opened dialogue channels, influenced court adjournments for negotiations, and aligned with UN Human Rights Working Group recommendations (2022) for Kanu’s unconditional release on arbitrary detention grounds. It demonstrates that even in Kanu’s specific case, presidential intervention was contemplated without court disruption.

“Most recently President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, invoking Section 305 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended). This measure suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for an initial six-month period. The declaration was prompted by a prolonged political crisis in the oil-rich state, exacerbated by pipeline vandalism, militant activities. Yet their were court cases pending in different courts.

“These examples—drawn from official records, Supreme Court judgments, and media archives—illustrate that presidential interventions are not taboo but a vital tool for balancing justice with peace. They occur through pardons, amnesties, emergency declarations, or mediated dialogues, often while cases proceed.”

Onoh stated that Mrs. Wesley’s blanket assertion overlooks this, suggesting an absolutist view of separation of powers that contradicts Nigeria’s federal practice.

He further said that Mrs. Wesley’s Explanation creates a narrative of bias because it reduces a complex socio-political issue to a simplistic legalism, ignoring the South-East’s deep-seated grievances over marginalization, insecurity, and Kanu’s four-year detention without bail.

“By framing non-intervention as unassailable rule of law adherence, it paints President Tinubu as indifferent or rigid—fueling a narrative of bias that alienates a region already skeptical of his administration due to perceived northern favoritism. This is not mere optics; it erodes trust at a time when the South-East seeks inclusive governance. Her explanation fails to acknowledge the President’s moral and political duty under Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution to promote unity, or his platform in the 2023 elections to “renew hope” through reconciliation.

“Moreover, as someone appointed to engage South-East communities, Mrs. Wesley’s detachment is concerning. I doubt if she has resided in the region long enough to grasp its pulse—the daily fears of IPOB-ESN clashes, economic boycotts, and calls for Kanu’s release as a peace gesture. I advise her to spend at least one year living among us in the South-East to truly advise on our yearnings, rather than issuing Abuja-centric platitudes that risk reversal of hard-won progress.

“For over three years, I have labored tirelessly to rebrand the APC and President Tinubu in the South-East, countering narratives of exclusion. My advocacy has promoted his “Renewed Hope” agenda through town halls, youth engagements, and economic outreach, yielding breakthroughs

“The APC’s Nicholas Ukachukwu secured second place with 99,445 votes statewide—a historic feat, surpassing previous third- or lower finishes (e.g., 2017’s 5th place). In his home LGA (Nnewi South), APC polled 9,281 votes, signaling growing acceptance. This shift, from APGA’s dominance, reflects our grassroots efforts aligning Tinubu’s vision with local aspirations.

“My state Governor Bar. Peter Mbah, elected under PDP in 2023, led his entire cabinet, 17 LGA chairmen, assembly members, and 80% of PDP executives to APC, ending PDP’s 26-year grip. Mbah cited alignment with Tinubu’s reforms as key, boosting APC to control three South-East states (adding to Imo and Ebonyi). This mass movement validates my promotion of federal inclusion.

“These milestones—unthinkable without sustained advocacy—demonstrate APC’s rising viability in a PDP/Labour stronghold. Mrs. Wesley’s comments, however, risk squandering this momentum by portraying the President as aloof, further entrenching biases and complicating 2027 outreach.

“In conclusion, I urge Mrs. Wesley to recalibrate her messaging toward empathy and possibility, emphasizing the President’s commitment to holistic justice. President Tinubu can and should explore interventions—be it dialogue facilitation or conditional amnesty—to honor court processes while healing divides. This is not weakness but statesmanship. The South-East stands ready for partnership; let us not forfeit it through avoidable missteps,” Onoh advised.

Read original article →