The Niger Delta Forum has distanced the entire region from Omoyele Sowore’s planned #MNKOct20 campaign calling for the release of detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Speaking to journalists on 13th October 2025 in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, the forum’s leader, Comrade Sunday Briggs, issued a stern warning against any solidarity gestures for the campaign in the Niger Delta region.
Briggs challenged arguments by Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s counsel, who has maintained that his client’s trial is illegal following what he described as an extraordinary rendition from Kenya. Whilst Ejimakor’s position rests on claims of unlawful extradition, Briggs argued that Nigeria retains full legal authority to prosecute Kanu for alleged crimes, warning that halting the trial would undermine justice and national security.
“The planned course of action is hinged on the argument by Aloy Ejimakor that Kanu’s trial is illegal due to his extraordinary rendition from Kenya,” Briggs stated. “However, a counter-perspective holds that Nigeria retains the legal authority to prosecute Kanu for alleged crimes, and halting the trial would undermine justice and national security.”
Briggs dismissed Ejimakor’s comparison of Kanu’s rendition to the failed 1984 Umaru Dikko kidnapping, arguing that the circumstances are fundamentally different. He noted that established legal precedents worldwide show that states have successfully prosecuted individuals despite irregular extraditions, with courts often prioritising domestic law over the circumstances of a defendant’s return, provided the charges are valid.
The forum leader pointed to the Nigerian Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling, which overturned the Court of Appeal’s acquittal of Kanu and remanded the case for trial, as implicit endorsement of Nigeria’s jurisdiction.
“Unlike the Dikko case, where no trial proceeded due to the failed kidnapping, Kanu is physically in Nigeria and faces serious charges like treasonable felony and terrorism, which are grounded in Nigerian law,” Briggs explained. “Dismissing these charges solely on rendition grounds risks creating a loophole where grave offences go unpunished.”
Whilst acknowledging that extraordinary rendition violates international norms such as the UN Convention Against Torture, Briggs cited international case law—including the United States case United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992)—demonstrating that courts may still proceed with trials if the defendant is present and due process is followed.
He emphasised that Nigeria’s judiciary has mechanisms to ensure fairness, including the ongoing trial-within-trial to assess Kanu’s alleged confessions.
“Ejimakor’s call to halt the trial entirely dismisses these safeguards and assumes bad faith without evidence that the judicial process itself is corrupted beyond the rendition,” Briggs argued.
The forum leader took issue with Ejimakor’s criticism of those monitoring Kanu’s trial, which the lawyer has described as legitimising an unlawful process. Briggs countered that civil society oversight ensures transparency and pressures the judiciary to adhere to due process.
“Groups monitoring the trial—such as human rights organisations—aim to hold the government accountable, not endorse its actions,” he said. “Their presence could expose any procedural flaws, benefiting Kanu’s defence. Dismissing these efforts as misguided ignores their role in upholding fairness.”
He referenced Kanu’s history of alleging judicial bias, which led to Justice Binta Nyako’s recusal in 2024, as evidence of the importance of continued oversight.
Briggs highlighted the national security concerns underpinning Kanu’s prosecution, noting that the charges stem from IPOB’s activities, including alleged incitement of violence and attacks on security forces, which have destabilised south-eastern Nigeria.
“The prosecution argues that Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and IPOB’s ‘sit-at-home’ orders fuelled unrest, with tangible impacts like economic disruption and loss of life,” he stated. “Whilst rendition raises ethical questions, abandoning the trial could embolden separatist actions and weaken Nigeria’s ability to address security challenges in a volatile region.”
The forum leader warned that Ejimakor’s push for the #MNKOct20 campaign could escalate already tense relations in Nigeria’s south-east. He noted IPOB’s history of confrontations with security forces, which have led to violence during sit-at-home orders.
“A mass mobilisation targeting Aso Rock could provoke a heavy-handed government response, further polarising the region and undermining dialogue,” Briggs cautioned. “A legal resolution through the courts, however imperfect, offers a structured path to address Kanu’s case without risking broader conflict.”
In his concluding remarks, Briggs acknowledged that Ejimakor’s argument centres on the moral and legal outrage of Kanu’s rendition but insisted it overlooks Nigeria’s sovereign right to prosecute serious crimes, the judiciary’s capacity to ensure due process, and the broader implications of halting the trial.
“Rather than dismissing the trial as illegitimate, stakeholders should focus on ensuring it meets international standards of fairness whilst addressing the underlying security concerns,” he said. “The #MNKOct20 campaign, whilst emotionally compelling, risks derailing a legal process that could clarify Kanu’s culpability or exoneration. Continued trial monitoring and advocacy for judicial reform are more constructive than calls to abandon the case entirely.”
The Niger Delta Forum has consequently disassociated the entire region from the protest anchored by Sowore and his associates.
