Nnamdi Kanu: Court acted like tribunal determined to convict at all costs – Lawyer
Controversy Surrounds Delay in Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal Hearing
Legal representatives for Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), have expressed concerns about the judicial process regarding his conviction. Onyedikachi Ifedi, a member of Kanu’s legal team, criticized the trial court, describing its actions as indicative of a predetermined agenda against the defendant.
Kanu’s family and legal counsel have alleged that the Nigerian government is evading courtroom accountability, especially after it was revealed that the prosecution has not filed a response to Kanu’s appeal. If the appeal is not scheduled for hearing soon, the IPOB has threatened to boycott the 2027 elections in the South-East and in regions they consider ‘Biafra territories’.
In a statement issued on Saturday, Ifedi stated that the conduct of the trial does not reflect the search for truth or adherence to legal norms. He asserted, “The record of this trial does not read like a court seeking truth or lawfulness. It reads like a tribunal operating under a predetermined directive, where the statute book was treated as an inconvenient obstacle to be bypassed.”
Ifedi specifically criticized Justice James Omotosho, who presided over Kanu’s trial, claiming that the court failed to uphold constitutional standards by not addressing Kanu’s requests for legal clarity during the proceedings.
The lawyer pointed out that the court allegedly violated Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no individual can be convicted of a crime unless the offense and penalties are defined in a written law that was in place at the time of the conviction. He argued that the law invoked during Kanu’s sentencing, the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, was no longer in effect, having been effectively repealed in May 2022.
“If Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu under that repealed statute, it would constitute a fundamental constitutional violation,” Ifedi asserted.
Furthermore, Ifedi contended that the court did not adhere to Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution, which requires that defendants be adequately informed of the charges against them. He emphasized that the charge sheet presented to Kanu referenced laws that do not exist.
He underscored the importance of judicial notice, as mandated by Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, which obliges judges to acknowledge the current laws of Nigeria without needing evidence from either party. Ifedi expressed concern that Justice Omotosho’s refusal to recognize the repeal of the relevant law compromised the integrity of the trial.
“If a judge ‘assumes’ the repeal of a penal statute while continuing to convict under it, that represents a serious breach of judicial duty,” he said. “Equally troubling is the apparent inconsistency in the court’s willingness to accept administrative orders recognizing IPOB as a proscribed group while disregarding the legal basis of the charges against Kanu.”
Highlighting previous Supreme Court rulings, Ifedi noted that trials conducted under repealed laws are deemed null and void, regardless of the resources expended during those proceedings. He urged that the judiciary must uphold constitutional requirements and act within the directives established by the National Assembly.
Ifedi concluded his statement by emphasizing the need for judicial accountability, arguing that the court’s alleged failures constitute a substantial deviation from lawful process.
