 |
Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu, Bayo Onanuga, calls for disciplinary action against Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, after he joined the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest in Abuja. |
On Monday, Onanuga took to his X (formerly Twitter) handle to condemn the appearance of one of Kanu’s lead lawyers, Aloy Ejimakor, among protesters organized by rights activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore.
According to Onanuga:
“I spotted Aloy Ejimakor, one of Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyers, among the small group of protesters mobilized in Abuja by Omoyele Sowore.”Onanuga noted that, in his view, the prosecution in Kanu’s case has concluded its presentation, and the defense team should now be focusing squarely on presenting its case, rather than engaging in public demonstrations. He characterized Ejimakor’s participation as undermining professional ethics and urged the relevant legal bodies, namely, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), to “examine” the conduct and “consider appropriate sanctions.”
“I wonder what Mr. Ejimakor was thinking when he decided to join this shambolic protest. As a lawyer, he should be aware of the principle of sub judice, particularly in relation to the ongoing treason case before the court.”
Meanwhile, in parallel to this, the protest itself is unfolding under tense circumstances. According to reports, activists demanded the immediate release of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and marched in Abuja despite a court order that prohibits demonstrations near government institutions such as the Presidential Villa, the National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Eagle Square, and others.
Also, Ejimakor posted on social media that he had been detained by police during the protest. He tweeted that he, Prince Emanuel (Kanu’s brother), and others were at the FCT Command CID after tear gas was deployed by security forces.
In Nigeria, as in many common-law jurisdictions, there is a principle known as “sub judice,” meaning that matters under judicial consideration should not be publicly prejudged or influenced by external commentary or actions that might be seen to interfere with the fairness of the trial. Onanuga suggests that by participating in the protest, the lawyer may have crossed a line.
Lawyers are expected to act within professional bounds. Their main duty is to the court and to provide a vigorous legal defense for their client, not to engage in extra-legal tactics that might compromise the process or be interpreted as advocacy outside of the courtroom. Onanuga’s view is that Ejimakor’s actions risk undermining the integrity of the judicial process.
On the flip side, the right to peaceful assembly and protest is enshrined in Nigeria’s constitution. The demonstration for Kanu’s release is part of a broader political and human rights context. Media reports show the activists pressed ahead despite court-issued injunctions and heavy security deployments.
Thus, there is a tension: the lawyer’s participation could be seen as exercising his civic rights; yet, given his role in an ongoing high-profile trial, critics argue it may complicate matters of legal propriety and public perception.
By making this statement publicly, the presidency is signaling that it sees the lawyer’s participation in the protest as more than a simple matter of personal expression but rather as a question of professional conduct and perhaps public order. The call to legal regulatory bodies underscores that this is being framed as an issue of access, fairness, and the rule of law.
It also comes at a time when the government is under pressure regarding the treatment of Nnamdi Kanu, the IPOB leader, whose detention since June 2021 and the handling of his case have been subject to widespread scrutiny and protest.
Nnamdi Kanu is the leader of IPOB, a separatist group in Nigeria’s Southeast region, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 2017 by the Nigerian government.
He was first arrested in 2015, granted bail in 2017, but fled abroad. In 2021, he was re-arrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria for trial. The prosecution alleges he committed terrorism and a treasonable felony, and his detention has been controversial, with criticisms including delays, alleged rights breaches, and defiance of court orders. Thus, his case sits at a sensitive intersection of national security, human rights, regional politics (especially regarding the Igbo South-East), and legal process. That background helps explain why the government is keen to manage both the perception and actual conduct surrounding the matter.
When it comes to sanctioning lawyers, two bodies are particularly relevant:
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is the umbrella body for legal practitioners in Nigeria.
The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), which handles complaints of misconduct and can impose sanctions on members such as suspension of practice or disbarment.
If the NBA/LPDC finds that a practitioner breached professional ethics, for instance, by acting in a manner inconsistent with the dignity of the profession, bringing the profession into disrepute, or undermining court process, then sanctions are possible.
Onanuga’s call is specifically asking these bodies to examine whether Ejimakor’s participation in a public protest constitutes such a breach.
Some legal professionals view the protest participation by a lawyer in an ongoing case as problematic. For example, one senior counsel in the media said, “As a lawyer in the matter, we are focused on the court proceedings and cannot take the case outside the courtroom.”
On Ejimakor’s side, he reportedly said he “endorsed the protest fully because it is the civic and constitutional right of Nigerians to protest. I am Nigerian; I will be joining the protest.”
Meanwhile, security agencies in Abuja have placed strategic locations under heavy guard ahead of the demonstration, citing a Federal High Court order barring protest near critical government sites.
If the NBA or LPDC acts in this case, it could set a precedent for how far lawyers can go in public activism when they are directly involved in ongoing litigation. It may prompt discussion among legal practitioners about boundaries between professional duties and citizen rights.
The incident highlights the tension between advocacy outside the courtroom (street protest, media campaigns) and formal legal processes. If a lawyer begins to straddle both, questions about impartiality, influence, and fairness can arise.
The presidency’s public call places pressure on legal regulatory authorities to respond. and on the government to show consistency in its commitment to the rule of law, rights of assembly, and fair trial. It also brings further attention to Kanu’s detention and the broader Southeast separatist issue.
From a strategic standpoint, the participation of a defense lawyer in a protest may be seen by some as supplementary to a broader advocacy campaign but by others as a distraction from courtroom strategy or a risk to the case’s perception. How the defense team balances public advocacy with legal work will be interesting.
At the heart of all of this lies more than legal technicalities: it’s about trust in institutions, fairness, and how citizens engage with power. For those demanding Kanu’s release, the protest is symbolic of broader frustrations: perceived injustice, delayed litigation, regional grievances, and a sense that some voices are silenced. For the government and legal institutions, it’s a reminder that actions and appearances matter: participation in protests by someone deeply involved in the legal fight raises questions of optics and propriety.
For the lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, the moment is personally and professionally charged. He is navigating dual identities, as a legal advocate in a highly politicized case and as a citizen with a view on civil rights. It raises the question: should a lawyer step into the public square while their client’s fate hangs in balance? Or does doing so compromise something essential about their role?
See Also... Abia Assembly Announces Peaceful March to Abuja over Kanu’s Detention
The incident is emblematic of larger fault lines: protest versus process, rights versus regulation, and individual conscience versus professional responsibility. How Nigeria’s legal watchdogs respond, and how the public perceives that response, will speak volumes about the strength of the country’s institutions and the space for both legal advocacy and civic activism.
By PrimeLineInfo
Join Our WhatsApp Channel
0 Comments