When a lawyer walks away from a high-profile client, it is never just about paperwork. It is a signal. A warning. Sometimes, a verdict before the verdict.
The recent withdrawal of Nnamdi Kanu’s court-appointed lawyer from his case is not an isolated legal incident—it is part of a troubling and growing pattern that raises deeper questions about power, control, trust, and the fragile relationship between activism and the rule of law.
Why are lawyers—especially those assigned to defend him—stepping back? And what does this say about Kanu’s legal strategy, his leadership style, and the future of his long-running legal battle?
When a Client Wants to Run the Courtroom
At the heart of the latest withdrawal is a claim that should unsettle anyone who believes in due process: that Nnamdi Kanu wanted to dictate exactly what his lawyer should say in court.
This is not a small disagreement over legal tactics. It strikes at the core of legal ethics.
Lawyers are not loudspeakers. They are officers of the court, bound by professional judgment, ethical rules, and procedural discipline.
When a client insists on scripting submissions, overriding legal strategy, or turning the courtroom into a political stage, the lawyer faces a dangerous choice: comply and risk professional misconduct, or withdraw and preserve the dignity of the profession.
In this case, the lawyer chose the latter—and the court openly praised him for it.
That praise speaks volumes.
Activism vs. Law: A Collision Course
Nnamdi Kanu is not just a defendant; he is a symbol. To his supporters, he represents resistance, injustice, and a silenced struggle.
But the courtroom does not operate on symbolism. It operates on rules, service of processes, filings, timelines, and restraint.
This is where the friction lies.
Many of Kanu’s legal setbacks have little to do with the substance of his political claims and much to do with procedure—motions struck out, applications deemed incompetent, hearings stalled by technical lapses.
Lawyers thrive in structure. Movements thrive in defiance.
When a political figure refuses to separate courtroom discipline from revolutionary rhetoric, lawyers begin to exit—not because they fear the case, but because they can no longer control it.
The Control Problem
There is a recurring complaint whispered in legal circles but rarely stated openly: that representing Nnamdi Kanu comes with intense pressure, not just from the state, but from the client himself and his support base.
Every lawyer wants to win. But no lawyer wants to become a puppet—especially in a case already under national and international scrutiny.
Once a lawyer begins to feel more like a messenger than a strategist, the relationship is already broken.
And broken lawyer-client relationships do not survive long in serious litigation.
Is the Legal System Being Distrusted—or Misunderstood?
Some supporters argue that Kanu’s distrust of lawyers is justified, pointing to years of delays, perceived bias, and unfulfilled promises. That frustration is real—and understandable.
But mistrusting the system while still relying on it is a contradiction.
You cannot reject the authority of the court and simultaneously demand its protection. You cannot accuse lawyers of incompetence while insisting they repeat your words verbatim.
Eventually, the system pushes back—not emotionally, but procedurally.
And procedure is unforgiving.
The Cost of Burning Legal Bridges
Every lawyer who walks away narrows Kanu’s options. Courts notice patterns. Judges take note. Future counsel become cautious.
Legal battles—especially complex, politically sensitive ones—are marathons, not protests. They require patience, compromise, and sometimes silence.
When those qualities are absent, even the most passionate cause begins to collapse under its own weight.
This does not mean Kanu’s grievances disappear. It means his ability to effectively argue them weakens.
A Question His Supporters Must Ask
The uncomfortable question is not whether Nnamdi Kanu deserves legal representation—he does. It is whether he is willing to allow lawyers to do their job.
Until that question is honestly answered, more withdrawals may follow. And each one will push the case further away from resolution and closer to legal isolation.
You May Like: Nigeria Faces Second Nationwide Power Grid Collapse in a Week
History shows that movements fail not only because of oppression, but because of internal rigidity—the refusal to adapt when the battlefield changes.
The courtroom is not a rally ground. It is a chessboard.
And chess cannot be won by shouting at the pieces.