Lawyer explains why Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction is ‘dead on arrival’ at Court of Appeal
Lawyer Challenges Conviction of Nnamdi Kanu, Claims Judicial Misconduct
Christopher Chidera, an attorney representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, has raised serious allegations regarding the trial process that led to Kanu’s conviction. Chidera contends that a review of the judgment indicates a fundamental miscarriage of justice by the presiding judge.
Chidera specifically claims that the judge deviated from the official charge sheet, fabricated a new theory of criminal liability after the defense had rested its case, and improperly invoked an uncharged offense under Section 3 of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013). He argues that this led to Kanu’s conviction for allegations he was never given an opportunity to address.
In Chidera’s view, the trial judge essentially changed the nature of the accusations against Kanu. He stated, “The plain reality is that the judge replaced the offense charged by the prosecution with a completely different offense at the point of judgment.” He likened the situation to a defendant being convicted for building a house when initially charged with merely helping to paint a fence.
Additionally, Chidera criticized the introduction of new legal standards after the trial had concluded. He highlighted that while Kanu was officially indicted for making broadcasts that supposedly contributed to terrorism, Justice Omotosho’s final judgment asserted that the broadcasts constituted the primary act of terrorism. Chidera contends this shift in legal interpretation creates significant jurisdictional issues.
Chidera further emphasized that Kanu was never asked to enter a plea regarding the newly introduced Section 3, nor was any evidence presented to support it. “The judge manufactured a crime not pleaded and a statutory provision not charged to convict without any opportunity to defend,” he argued.
He underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional rights, specifically referencing Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that accused individuals be informed of the specific nature of the charges against them. “This constitutional guarantee becomes completely meaningless if a court can introduce a different criminal accusation in its final judgment and convict on the strength of it,” Chidera stated.
Chidera also maintained that the Court of Appeal should not uphold Kanu’s conviction due to these substantive defects in the original judgment from the Abuja Federal High Court. He cautioned that an appellate court cannot simply dismiss the problematic elements of the case without addressing the core issue: the judge’s reasoning deviated from the official charges.
“The appellate court must confront the judgment as delivered. It cannot write a replacement judgment or invent a charge that was never filed,” Chidera remarked. He indicated that any attempt to uphold the conviction would require ignoring the original trial record or altering constitutional principles, which he believes would further compromise judicial integrity.
The implications of Chidera’s assertions could have significant consequences for Kanu’s case as it moves through the appeals process.
