Charge sheet did not identify any terrorist act committed by Nnamdi Kanu – Defence team
Ifedi, a representative of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, spoke to reporters regarding a delay by the Court of Appeal in listing Kanu’s appeal against his conviction. He criticized the charge sheet used in the case, asserting that it did not specify any act of terrorism linked to Kanu.
Ifedi argued that the trial violated foundational principles of criminal pleading by failing to identify the specific crime committed by Kanu. He challenged Judge Omotosho and the prosecution to present a single count in the charge sheet that identifies a distinct act of terrorism purportedly associated with Kanu’s broadcasts.
“We call on Justice Omotosho, the prosecution team, and all legal practitioners in Nigeria: point to a specific charge that defines the primary act of terrorism allegedly advanced by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s broadcasts,” Ifedi said.
In count eight of the charges, the Nigerian government accused Kanu of urging members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to manufacture bombs in a broadcast purportedly supporting terrorism. However, Ifedi underscored that the central legal issue is not whether a contemplated act of terrorism occurred but whether the prosecution adequately defined the alleged acts in the charges.
“The question is one of pleading: what specific terrorist act did the prosecution assert these broadcasts advanced, and where is that act identified in the charges?” Ifedi stated.
He emphasized that the prosecution could not respond to this challenge by merely citing the broadcast itself, as doing so would not establish a separate act of terrorism related to the allegation of furthering a terrorist act.
Ifedi criticized the court for allowing the trial to continue, stating that a charge sheet must provide clear, written notice of all essential elements of the offense. “A judge cannot function as a prosecutor,” he added. “If Justice Omotosho overlooked the absence of a primary terrorist act in the charge sheet, it reflects a significant flaw in criminal procedure.”
He further asserted that if the judge recognized this deficiency yet proceeded to convict, it suggested an attempt to compensate for an inadequate prosecution.
Ifedi maintained that the trial violated Section 36(6)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees that individuals charged with a crime must be promptly informed of the nature and cause of their accusation. He argued that the failure to specify the primary act of terrorism deprived Kanu of essential details needed to form an effective defense.
The defense team raised objections regarding the competence of the charge sheet for not including crucial statutory elements of the offenses charged. However, Ifedi claimed the judge reserved consideration of these objections for the final ruling without addressing them in his decision.
He asserted that the authority of a court to adjudicate is contingent upon the charge sheet meeting fundamental legal standards. Ifedi argued that Kanu’s conviction cannot withstand appeal, describing the prosecution as an endeavor that lacked substance from its inception.
“This is the crux of the trial: a conviction based on a terrorism charge sheet that failed to specify any overt act of terrorism,” he explained. He noted that under Nigerian law, a court cannot convict an individual if the indictment does not include the primary act required by law.
“If speech alone doesn’t constitute a terrorist act under Section 1(2)(b), then claiming a broadcast was made ‘in furtherance of an act of terrorism’ without clearly identifying the primary act is legally insufficient,” Ifedi stated. He concluded with a reference to established legal precedents, emphasizing that a court lacks jurisdiction to convict on a charge sheet that does not adequately outline the factual elements of the alleged offense.
