Stephen Ukandu, Umuahia
The family of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPoB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has reacted to his conviction by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, describing the verdict as “an ambush and an affront to the Constitution.”
The family, in a statement on Monday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu and made available to Ikengaonline, demanded the immediate nullification of the judgment, insisting it was “predicated on a repealed, dead, and non-existent law.”
The family expressed shock that the trial judge allegedly introduced matters not contained in the charges nor raised by any witness during the proceedings. It argued that no judge is permitted to “ambush” an accused person after the close of hearing.
“Once parties conclude arguments, the judge cannot, on judgment day, introduce a new legal theory, new statutes, or new grounds of conviction. Doing so without informing the accused or giving him a chance to be heard is the very definition of denial of fair hearing,” the statement read in part.
It continued: “Justice Omotosho invoked a transition/savings clause — a clause that nobody argued, raised, or addressed — and used it to overturn the Constitution itself. This is ambush jurisprudence. This is not law.”
The family said the judgment ignored multiple constitutional provisions and binding precedents.
“After months of legal arguments citing Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court authorities stating plainly that a repealed law is dead, and the binding decision of the Supreme Court directing correction of Count 7, Justice Omotosho ignored every one of these constitutional and judicial commands and convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on repealed and non-existent laws,” the statement added.
Describing the development as “unprecedented” and “a direct violation of the right to fair hearing,” the family stressed that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that a repealed statute is dead and incapable of creating an offence or sustaining a conviction.
It further argued that the savings clause invoked by the judge did not apply to Kanu’s case, insisting that his previous charges had been terminated by the Court of Appeal’s discharge and acquittal before the Federal Government filed fresh charges.
“A case that was terminated cannot be saved by a transition clause. The law cannot save what no longer existed,” the statement said, adding that no statute or judicial improvisation can override constitutional provisions.
The family raised several questions: “Is Justice Omotosho saying that a judge can convict on a repealed law? Revive a dead law? Contradict the Constitution? Derogate from a non-derogable right? Such a proposition is legally absurd and constitutionally dangerous.”
Declaring that the judgment “cannot stand,” the family insisted it was “unlawful, unconstitutional and void,” alleging that it was achieved through “ambush, reliance on laws that no longer exist, disobedience to the Supreme Court, denial of fair hearing, and a fabricated legal theory never presented in open court.”
