Nnamdi Kanu Conviction Exposes Selective Justice While Sheikh Gumi Continues Unchallenged By Authorities [OPINION]

 

A prominent Nigerian lawyer and political commentator, Malcolm Emokiniovo Omirhobo, has drawn national attention to what he describes as a glaring double standard in Nigeria’s judicial system following the life imprisonment of Indigenous People of Biafra leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Omirhobo condemned the verdict as an illustration of selective justice, contrasting Kanu’s prosecution with the continued freedom of Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, who has openly engaged with armed bandits and terror groups.

Omirhobo emphasized that while Kanu faced arrest, detention, trial, and conviction for allegedly making inflammatory broadcasts, Sheikh Gumi has openly met with criminals responsible for mass killings and kidnappings, defended their actions publicly, and acted as their mediator, yet has faced no legal consequences. According to Omirhobo, this stark disparity undermines both moral and constitutional standards in Nigeria, citing Sections 17, 36, and 42 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, equal protection for all citizens, and freedom from discrimination in law enforcement.

The lawyer highlighted the dangerous precedent such selective enforcement sets, arguing that Nigeria cannot credibly claim to combat terrorism while permitting individuals like Gumi to operate without oversight. “One man is prosecuted for speech, while another who routinely engages with terrorists is celebrated as a mediator,” Omirhobo stated in a signed declaration. He insisted that Kanu’s case, marked by extraordinary rendition and years of inconsistent access to justice, exposes a system where legal standards appear to shift depending on ethnicity, religion, or political influence.

Omirhobo called on the federal government, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Department of State Services, and the Nigeria Police Force to demonstrate impartiality by investigating Gumi’s actions. He warned that without uniform enforcement of the law, public trust in the justice system will continue to erode. “Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done,” he asserted.

He further argued that if incendiary broadcasts qualify as terrorism, then direct engagement and advocacy for armed groups constitute far graver offenses, yet remain unchecked. The lawyer criticized the prevailing culture of selective prosecution as a hallmark of governance that compromises Nigeria’s fight against insecurity. He urged authorities to apply the same legal standards to all citizens, regardless of background, to restore confidence in the rule of law.

Omirhobo concluded that until the Nigerian state demonstrates that justice is truly blind to religion, ethnicity, and political alignment, any effort to curb insecurity will remain fundamentally flawed. “The conviction of Nnamdi Kanu while Sheikh Gumi remains untouched is a glaring example of double standards,” he said. He stressed that genuine national security and public confidence in governance demand fairness, uniformity, and strict adherence to constitutional principles.