Nnamdi Kanu tried like someone already marked for prison – Defence team

The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium has expressed concerns over the delay in hearing the appeal filed by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), challenging his conviction. Onyedikachi Ifedi, a lawyer representing the Consortium, stated that Kanu’s legal team and family have voiced frustrations regarding the lack of a scheduled hearing at the Court of Appeal.

As a result of this development, IPOB has instructed its members to boycott activities associated with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the lead-up to the 2027 elections.

In court filings, Kanu formally requested that his trial be transferred from the repealed Terrorism Act of 2013 to the new Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2022. This request is in line with the requirements outlined in Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act. However, the presiding judge denied the motion.

“Ifedi questioned why the Federal High Court judge would not adhere to the clear language of the statute. He contended that the judge’s refusal to act on Kanu’s formal application suggests a disregard for the rule of law. He characterized the handling of Kanu’s case as one where the judge seemed to overlook Kanu’s constitutional rights,” Ifedi said.

Ifedi further argued that Kanu’s conviction would likely have been avoided had the judge transferred the trial to the more current legal framework outlined in the 2022 Act. He claimed that the court’s reluctance to apply the new law reflects a fear of the “living law” and that the evidence regulations and strict standards of the 2022 Act would not support the government’s older allegations.

“If the judge had complied with the law, the charges against Kanu would have collapsed, leading to his release. Instead, he chose to anchor the trial in an outdated legal framework, compromising his judicial responsibilities for a predetermined political outcome,” Ifedi stated.

He further argued that the judge’s actions rendered the resulting conviction vulnerable on appeal, citing violations of Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution. This section maintains that no individual may be convicted under a law that is not actively in force.

Ifedi referenced the precedent set in the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, asserting that once the judge disregarded the mandatory statutory directive, he forfeited jurisdiction over the case. He emphasized that the appellate court would not be able to alter the factual record that clearly indicates the judge’s refusal to move Kanu’s trial to the relevant statutes.

“An appellate court cannot rectify a conviction that was achieved through clear violations of the Constitution,” Ifedi stated.

Read Full Article