The decision of court to permit the prosecution to hide the identities of witnesses testifying against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has profound implications, particularly in the context of Nigeria’s judicial and political landscape, where allegations of government coercion, manipulation, and bribery are prevalent.
This practice, often justified as a measure to protect witnesses, raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the judicial process.
The cornerstone of any credible judicial system is the right to a fair trial, enshrined in Nigeria’s Constitution (Section 36) and international human rights frameworks like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 10).
Allowing the prosecution to conceal witness identities directly threatens this right in several ways:
Cross-examination is a critical mechanism for testing the credibility and reliability of witnesses. If Kanu’s defence team cannot know the identities of the witnesses, their ability to challenge testimonies—by probing biases, motives, or inconsistencies—is severely curtailed. This tilts the trial in favour of the prosecution, creating an uneven playing field.
In a country like Nigeria, where allegations of government manipulation and bribery are common, anonymous witnesses increase the risk of coerced or fabricated testimonies. The defence cannot investigate whether witnesses have been pressured, bribed, or otherwise incentivised to provide false evidence, further eroding the trial’s fairness.
The principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) requires that the accused have a full opportunity to respond to the case against them. Concealing witness identities hampers Kanu’s ability to mount a robust defence, violating natural justice and potentially rendering the trial a sham.
The judiciary’s legitimacy depends on its transparency and accountability. Permitting anonymous witnesses in a high-profile case like Kanu’s risks further eroding public trust in Nigeria’s judicial system, which already faces criticism for alleged corruption and political influence.
In Nigeria, where the government is often accused of using state institutions to target political opponents, allowing witness anonymity fuels perceptions that the judiciary is complicit in a politically motivated prosecution. This is particularly significant in Kanu’s case, given IPOB’s claims of “judicial terrorism” and the government’s alleged defiance of prior court rulings.
Trials, especially those involving public figures like Kanu, are subject to public and media scrutiny, which helps ensure accountability. Anonymous witnesses reduce transparency, making it harder for the public to assess whether justice is being served or if the trial is a tool of oppression.
Allowing this practice in Kanu’s case could set a dangerous precedent, normalising the use of anonymous witnesses in other politically sensitive trials. This could embolden the government to further manipulate judicial processes to silence dissenters, activists, or opposition figures.
Nigeria’s history of alleged government coercion, bribery, and manipulation amplifies the dangers of anonymous witnesses in Kanu’s trial.
In a system where security agencies and government officials have been accused of intimidating citizens, witnesses could be coerced into testifying against Kanu under threats to their safety, family, or livelihood.
Bribery is a well-documented issue in Nigeria’s public sector. Anonymous witnesses could be offered financial or other incentives to provide testimony favourable to the prosecution, with no mechanism for the defence to uncover such corruption.
The lack of transparency increases the risk that the prosecution could present fictitious witnesses or fabricated testimonies. For example, state actors could invent witnesses or use agents posing as civilians to bolster their case, knowing the defence cannot challenge their identities.
Nigeria is a signatory to several international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates fair trial standards (Article 14).
The use of anonymous witnesses raises concerns about Nigeria’s compliance with these obligations:
The ICCPR emphasises the right to a public hearing and the ability to examine witnesses.
The international community, including human rights organisations like Amnesty International and bodies like the United Nations, may view this practice as a human rights violation. This could lead to increased scrutiny of Nigeria’s judicial system and diplomatic pressure to reform or release Kanu, as IPOB has demanded.
Persistent allegations of judicial misconduct, coupled with practices like anonymous witnesses, could damage Nigeria’s standing as a democratic state committed to the rule of law. This may affect foreign investment, international partnerships, and Nigeria’s influence in regional bodies like the African Union.
Kanu’s trial is not just a legal matter but a deeply political and social issue, given IPOB’s prominence and the tensions surrounding Igbo self-determination in Nigeria. The use of anonymous witnesses could exacerbate these tensions, IPOB and its supporters view Kanu’s trial as persecution of the Igbo people. Allowing anonymous witnesses will reinforce this narrative, fuelling resentment and potentially escalating protests or unrest in the South-East.
Perceived injustices in Kanu’s trial could radicalise IPOB’s base, leading to increased militancy or violence.
The trial is a polarising issue in Nigeria, with some viewing Kanu as a separatist threat and others as a freedom fighter. This move will deepen this divide, with pro-government groups justifying the measure for “security” and Kanu’s supporters decrying it as evidence of a rigged trial.
In a context where the government is accused of using state machinery to suppress dissent, critics will see this as evidence that the judiciary is succumbing to executive pressure, undermining its independence. This is particularly concerning given IPOB’s claims that the government has ignored prior court rulings in Kanu’s favour.
Nnaji nwa Nnaji be Oruruo
Writes from Abuja
