by Alexander O. Onukwue
There is more than an acceptable dose of cynicism in the suggestion made by Ifeanyi Ejiofor, the lawyer representing Nnamdi Kanu, that the IPOB leader may have been killed by the Nigerian Army.
Mr Kanu was last seen in public on September 10, after his supporters clashed with soldiers. Mr Ejiofor said some IPOB supporters were killed in the clash, according to the PREMIUM TIMES. Kanu’s home was said to have been visited by the Nigerian Army while they were on a show of force in Umuahia, with claims of him and his family being abducted by men of the camouflage on the 14th of September.
Mr Kanu was scheduled to attend a meeting with South East Governors last Friday but there was a letter said to have been signed by him stating his withdrawal from the meeting, citing “the oppressive Nigerian state to shatter the peace and tranquillity of the South-East and the rest of Biafraland through military intimidation”.
Besides the fact that Mr Ejiofor’s suggestion is baseless being just an opinion formed from not being in contact with Kanu, it is materially inflammatory at this particular point in time. The Nigerian Army has no reason to kill or want to kill Nnamdi Kanu because he was neither declared wanted nor a specific target of any operations in the South East.
To unnecessarily stoke tensions for the benefit of one’s clients can certainly not be part of the legal code, and it may be worthwhile for the Nigerian Bar, if Mr Ejiofor belongs to it, to deliberate on the responsibilities of its members when it comes to public utterances and speculations in situations such as this.