A lot of people are still in the dark as to whether the FG acted lawfully on Kanu's purpoted repatriation. Judge with this analogy. A man named Mr Charles owns a smartphone. One day, he decided to charge in his neighbour's house. His neighbour named James opened the door to him, accepted and plugged in the phone for him. In the evening, on his way back from the church, he saw another friend named John with same phone. John claims that Charles unlawfully took a picture of him john, and, as a man of principle, he John has finally gotten the phone and wants to be fair by deleting only the wanted picture in the presence of Mr Charles. Mr John also fails to disclose how he got the phone. Should Mr John who was found with someone's smartphone be allowed to proceed to tamper with the phone or should he answer questions for theft? Does his unwillingness to disclose how he got the phone justify having a property not belonging to him? Is Mr James in whose custody the phone went missing off the hook? Can he successfully deny the phone's whereabouts despite collecting and plugging it in for Mr Charles? Does the phone's owner, Mr Charles have the right to reclaim his phone unconditionally, and even demand for Mr John's punishment? Answer the questions and understand why malami was called a disgrace to the rule of law. BTW, Mr Charles represents the United kingdom. The Smartphone represents Nnamdi KANU. Mr James represents Kenya, While Mr John represents Nigeria.