Wike, Malami, Sanwo-Olu Are Competent Witnesses in Kanu’s Case, Says Lawyer Ibrahim Wali

A lawyer and public affairs analyst, Ibrahim Wali, has said that former Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike, former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, among others, are competent witnesses who can be summoned by the court in the ongoing trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People […]

A lawyer and public affairs analyst, Ibrahim Wali, has said that former Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike, former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, among others, are competent witnesses who can be summoned by the court in the ongoing trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

Speaking on Inside Sources with Laolu Akande on Channels Television on Friday, Wali said while all the individuals listed in Kanu’s application could qualify as competent witnesses before the court, the law recognizes certain classes of people who cannot be compelled to testify due to their constitutional immunity.

“Well, there are classes of people who, you know, all of these witnesses are competent witnesses before the court, but there are classes of witnesses you can’t compel. And, for example, current governors, you cannot compel them to come and give evidence,” Wali explained.

He added that the Evidence Act provides clarity on categories of people that cannot be forced to testify, noting that such exemptions are tied to constitutional immunity granted to sitting governors.

“Part of it, yes, but, you know, even the law, the Evidence Act, you know, is clear as to the nature of people you can’t compel, but obviously it flows into their immunity, because when you come to court, you know, and you’re giving evidence, you know, there’s the potential of you perjuring yourself, which is a criminal offence,” he said.

Wali explained that while sitting governors cannot be compelled, non-sitting governors and former public officials such as Wike and Malami are competent witnesses who could be summoned to testify if the court deems their testimonies relevant to the proceedings.

“But the likes of, you know, the non-sitting governors and, you know, other people like Nyesom Wike and the former AGF are competent witnesses,” he said. “The court will still have to look at whether they are relevant to the proceedings before they issue a subpoena, but they are definitely competent witnesses that can be invited, summoned by the court, and immediately the court summons them, they have no choice but to come.”

Wali also reflected on the legal trajectory of Kanu’s case, referencing the 2022 Court of Appeal decision which had quashed the initial charges against him on the grounds of unlawful rendition from Kenya. He noted that the appellate court had found that Kanu’s fundamental rights were breached, leading to a ruling that the matter be quashed, before the Supreme Court later held that he had a case to answer at the Federal High Court.

“But I think that, you know, without prejudice to the matter in court, if you look at the Court of Appeal decision—the 2022 Court of Appeal decision that quashed his initial… they initially said that he should be released before they went to the Supreme Court—and the Supreme Court said he had a case to answer at the Federal Court,” Wali said.

He further explained that Kanu appears to be relying on the earlier jurisprudence that questioned the legality of his rendition from Kenya and is attempting to use the testimonies of people like Wike, Malami, and Sanwo-Olu to substantiate his claims.

“I think he’s trying to prove the process of the unlawful rendition using these people,” Wali stated, adding that Kanu may also be using their testimonies to establish a broader narrative about alleged state actions that could be interpreted as “terrorism against the people.”

“With the likes of Wike, for example, he’s trying to prove, I think, a pattern of what I would say, you know, terrorism against the people, because obviously, you know, his defence is around whether, you know, his statements and all of that were, in a democratic society, they’re reasonable,” Wali noted.

According to him, Kanu’s legal team may seek to demonstrate that his statements, often cited by the prosecution as incitement, were consistent with remarks made by other public figures who had also commented on citizens’ rights to self-defence.

“So that’s why he wanted them to come and say, okay, you are the… This is what Nyesom Wike is also saying. This is what the DSS said as well. So all of them, at some point, they made statements as to whether or not people should, you know, arm themselves, or rather defend themselves, you know, how you should defend themselves,” Wali said.

He concluded that Kanu’s strategy appears to involve tying these narratives together to demonstrate that his own comments were not out of context or unlawful when viewed within the wider framework of public discourse on self-defence and civil rights.

“In my belief, and I’m not privy to the evidence,” Wali cautioned, “he’s trying to bring all of these things together.”