Why Nigerian judiciary is running from Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal – Lawyer

Concerns Raised Over Delay in Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal Process

The Nigerian judiciary is facing scrutiny over the delay in addressing the appeal filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), regarding his conviction. Attorney Christopher Chidera expressed concerns about the irregularities in Kanu’s judgment during a recent interview.

Chidera highlighted the controversy surrounding the Court of Appeal’s sluggish response in scheduling Kanu’s appeal hearing. He attributed the delay to the Abuja Federal High Court’s refusal, under Justice James Omotosho, to transition Kanu’s trial from the now-repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act of 2013 to the current Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2022. He emphasized that this transition is mandated by sections 97 and 98(2) of the new legislation.

The attorney pointed out that the trial judge declined to facilitate this transition, even after Kanu, who represented himself, formally requested the change during the trial. Kanu’s defense team contends that had the trial proceeded under the updated TPPA 2022, the outcome might have been different.

Chidera remarked on the ramifications of the delay, stating, “The public and the legal community must recognize the unusual silence from the state’s legal apparatus regarding the appeal.” He further criticized the prosecution’s approach, suggesting that Justice Omotosho’s actions have created a “state of total legal paralysis.”

He elaborated on the implications of defending a conviction based on a repealed statute, stating, “No defense for a dead law. How does a state counsel write a legal brief defending a conviction under a statute that has been explicitly repealed?”

Chidera expressed concern that the appellate court cannot rectify the trial judge’s refusal to adhere to statutory requirements. He described the original judgment as a significant liability for the judiciary and emphasized the need for a resolution. “To be candid, I do not blame the judiciary for their reluctance to list the case for hearing. Justice Omotosho’s judgment poses a challenge that Kanu is poised to exploit,” he said.

He characterized the ruling as a “constitutional nullity” that the government cannot adequately defend. “The public record reveals a stark reality: Justice Omotosho’s judgment is an unconstitutional nullity,” he stated, arguing that the judge’s bias led to a flawed verdict.

Chidera concluded by stressing the need for the appeal to move forward. “The government’s extreme reluctance to list the appeal for hearing or file a substantive response speaks volumes. They cannot defend a conviction anchored on a repealed statute. The conviction, based on legal grounds alone, is effectively null and void,” he asserted.

Read Full Article