Nnamdi Kanu: Idea of pardon is premature – Malami

*Insists it’s premature to conclude soldiers used live ammunition at Lekki toll gate

The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, has said that the issue of pardoning the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, is premature.

Malami stated this on Wednesday while appearing as a guest on Channels Television’s Politics Today.

“Pardon is a function of conviction in the Nigerian context and as far as I know, Nnamdi Kanu has not been convicted yet so the idea of pardoning him is premature,” the AGF asserted.

Buttressing his point, the minister stated that the trials associated with Kanu have not been concluded and as such the pardon option cannot get on the table just yet.

While stressing that he is not ruling the option out, Malami, however, noted that pardoning Kanu is not on the table at the moment.

Reacting to a question regarding the IPOB leader’s pardon being an option for peace in the South East, the AGF said he is yet to assess the security implications of such a decision.

Nonetheless, the Minister of Justice declared that the best interest of the public would be a major consideration if the opportunity avails itself for a pardon to be given to the IPOB leader.

Malami’s comments come a few days after leaders from the South East met with President Muhammadu Buhari to plead for Kanu to be pardoned.

The AGF also during the Channels Television’s current affairs programme, ‘Politics Today’ on Wednesday, said it is premature for anyone to conclude that the men of the Nigerian Army used live ammunition on harmless protesters at the Lekki toll gate on October 20, 2020.

Asked by the presenter of the programme whether it was right for the military to fire live ammunition at peaceful protesters, Malami said: “You are jumping to a conclusion that live ammunition were indeed used during the EndSARS protest. Whether the report says so or it doesn’t say so, as far as I am concerned, I am not in a position to ascertain that.

“Within the context of the White Paper, we have criminal investigation that must follow for the purpose of criminal prosecution where the need arises.

“The report in its own right cannot be conclusive in making a position; there are still layers of administrative and judicial processes that would follow before you can jump, establishing conclusion, criminal or otherwise.

“So, I think as far as the report stands in its own right, it is not conclusive for the provision of what truly transpired…Indeed, it is very premature to jump to a conclusion that live ammunition were used.

I am not in a position to accept that. It is premature for me as the chief law officer to share in the conclusion in that direction.”

Asked whether the government should have sent the military to disperse the young demonstrators at the toll gate, the AGF said: “The major function of the Federal Government is indeed the protection of lives and provision of security.

The bottom line is whether what has been done by the government is within the internationally tolerable limit.

“So, it is not about the military or not the military but arriving from the circumstance, the context, the factual situation on the ground, whether there is justification for what has been done by the government and my conclusion is what government does in each and every peculiar circumstances is a function of what is on the ground.”

“You cannot rule out any possibility inclusive of bring security apparatus once there exists a threat to national integrity or territorial integrity of the nation or perhaps there are certain security challenges on the ground,” he added.