Former presidential spokesman in the South-East, Denge Josef Onoh, has faulted claims by President Bola Tinubu’s Special Assistant on Community Engagement (South-East), Mrs. Chioma Wesley, that the President cannot intervene in the ongoing trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Mrs. Wesley had argued that President Tinubu could not intervene in Kanu’s ongoing trial because the matter was still before the courts. But Onoh dismissed her claim as “wrong, oversimplified, and politically harmful,” insisting that previous Nigerian presidents have exercised constitutional powers to engage in ongoing judicial matters, especially those with implications for national unity and peace.
“The truth is that Nigerian presidents have repeatedly exercised their constitutional and prerogative powers to engage in ongoing judicial processes, particularly in cases involving separatist agitations, ethnic tensions, and national unity—precisely the context of Nnamdi Kanu’s detention,” Onoh said.
He explained that such interventions do not amount to subverting the judiciary but rather complement the courts through dialogue, political settlements, and administrative decisions that support national reconciliation.
“Mrs. Wesley’s statement is not only an oversimplification but a potentially damaging narrative that ignores the nuanced powers of the presidency, historical precedents, and the fragile political dynamics in the South-East,” Onoh stated.
He warned that her comments could further alienate the South-East from the President, saying, “This explanation risks reinforcing existing biases against President Tinubu in the South-East, undermining painstaking image-building efforts of the APC and the President—efforts to which individuals like myself have devoted over three years.”
Onoh cited several instances where past Nigerian presidents intervened in matters before the courts, stressing that such actions were well within their constitutional powers.
“The 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests the President with executive authority under Sections 4, 5, and 140, including the power to grant prerogative of mercy (Section 175), pardon offenses, or facilitate negotiations that expedite resolutions without prejudice to ongoing trials. These tools have been invoked historically to de-escalate crises, even while cases remain sub judice,” he explained.
He recalled that former President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State in 2004 amid litigation, suspended the governor and legislature, and appointed an administrator — all while the case was still in court. “The Supreme Court eventually upheld the President’s discretionary powers in crises,” Onoh noted.
Onoh also cited Obasanjo’s establishment of the Oputa Panel in 1999, which investigated human rights violations even while some of the related cases were in court. Similarly, he pointed to former President Goodluck Jonathan’s amnesty programme for Niger Delta militants in 2010, which led to conditional releases and negotiated settlements even as several cases were pending in the courts.
He further recalled that former President Muhammadu Buhari had, in 2022, hinted at the possibility of a political solution to Kanu’s case, acknowledging that the executive could intervene while respecting judicial processes.
“Even President Tinubu, earlier this year, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State while court cases were ongoing. This proves that presidential interventions are not taboo but vital instruments for balancing justice and peace,” Onoh said.
According to him, these examples demonstrate that the presidency can act decisively within the bounds of the Constitution to foster stability, reconciliation, and national unity.
Onoh, therefore, accused Mrs. Wesley of promoting “a rigid and misleading interpretation of separation of powers” that could deepen mistrust between the Federal Government and the South-East.
“Her explanation creates a narrative of bias because it reduces a complex socio-political issue to simplistic legalism, ignoring the South-East’s deep-seated grievances over marginalization, insecurity, and Kanu’s four-year detention without bail,” he said.
Onoh also questioned Wesley’s connection to the region she was appointed to represent. “I doubt if she has resided in the region long enough to grasp its pulse—the daily fears of IPOB-ESN clashes, economic boycotts, and calls for Kanu’s release as a peace gesture. I advise her to spend at least one year living among us in the South-East to truly advise on our yearnings rather than issuing Abuja-centric platitudes,” he charged.
Highlighting his own efforts to improve President Tinubu’s image in the region, Onoh said he had spent years rebranding the APC and mobilizing support for the President’s “Renewed Hope” agenda.
“For over three years, I have labored tirelessly to rebrand the APC and President Tinubu in the South-East, countering narratives of exclusion. The APC’s Nicholas Ukachukwu secured second place in the Anambra governorship election—a historic feat. In Enugu, Governor Peter Mbah’s defection with his cabinet and party structure has given the APC a strong foothold in the region,” he said.
He warned that careless comments like Wesley’s could undo this progress. “Mrs. Wesley’s comments risk squandering this momentum by portraying the President as aloof, further entrenching biases and complicating 2027 outreach,” Onoh cautioned.
In conclusion, Onoh urged the Presidential aide to “recalibrate her messaging toward empathy and possibility,” emphasizing that the President must explore all legitimate means to address the Nnamdi Kanu issue.
“President Tinubu can and should explore interventions—be it dialogue facilitation or conditional amnesty—to honor court processes while healing divides. This is not weakness but statesmanship. The South-East stands ready for partnership; let us not forfeit it through avoidable missteps,” he advised.
