Suggestion that Nnamdi Kanu needs a lawyer to go through his defence on the charges of terrorism and sundry offences, especially from lawyers, is a regular establishment suggestion one should expect from any lawyer.This kind of admonition stems from a position of enlightened self interest. It is a supposition that is not grounded in logical and practical reasoning that a lawyer should always be seen as a custodian of everything that partains to criminal trial in a court of law. As a philosopher once suggested, the court is their presumed market, and presumed criminals are their customers.Thus, anything that would seperate or shortchange the buyer from the seller in a marketplace, where they are expected, to enjoy a monopoly must be resisted. And Kanu opting to do away with his battery of Lawyers, including Senior Advocate of Nigeria, sounds awkward and its possibility potends a bad precedent, and they are not expected to wish him well in his determination to defend himself.Truth is, kidnapping of Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria, and his continued detention, against two court judgements that granted him freedom from trial, has made his on-going prosecution by the Nigerian state a PERSECUTION, therefore, the trial is more political than legal, as Kanu is a political detainee, and not a criminal because the quest for SELF-DETERMINATION by him and the group he leads is no crime under any law, both international and local.Professional lawyers, more concerned with the nuances of technicality, may not be able to raise the kind of questions, based on established facts, with his witnesses, as he, the one in the dock, would raise.Afterall, it is his freedom that is at stake.In any case, why should the courageous man be afraid of remaining behind bars, a place he has been kept illegally since he was kidnapped by the stone- age despot, called Mohammadu Buhari. As for a possible death sentence, this is akin to crying wolf and raising unnecessary alarm. I ask, did Kanu hold any pistol to kill anyone. Yes, his radio broadcasts on Radio Biafra may be deemed inciting to IPOB members, but liability for criminal action is personal.And the law would have to establish it beyond reasonable doubt, that specific deaths were those by identifiable IPOB members, and not the criminal actions of cult members of rival political party leaders contesting for space in the South-East geopolitical zone. Kanu’s trial promises to be a reminder of the Rivonia trial of Nelson Mandela by the inglorious apartheid regime of South Africa. In Nnamdi Kanu’s case, the underbelly of a criminal estate, called the Nigerian state, under the transactional career criminals, called politicians, would be exposed in the open court in the course of his forensic engagements with his witnesses whom he has asked the court subpoena meaning, of which failure to appear becomes a comtemt of court.In solidarity, the powerless conscience stands with Nnamdi Kanu in his travails in the hands of conscienceless power.He should be consoled that in a struggle as this , the people always outlast the palace
