Rule of law not followed in conviction of Kanu, Omotosho wants promotion – IPOB alleges

By Cyprian Ebele, Onitsha

The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Monday accused the  Abuja Federal High court judge, Justice James Omotosho, who sentenced its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment of delivering a judgment to allegedly favour the Federal Government in a bid to be promoted to an Appeal court  judge stating that the judge did not follow rule of law in Presiding over the suit.

In a release issued to newsmen by the IPOB spokesperson, Emma Powerful, the movement said, “The judgment delivered against our leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has exposed very worrying things happening in the Nigerian justice system. 

“What we have seen in this case shows clearly that the rules of law were not followed, and ordinary Nigerians deserve to understand the truth in simple, clear language. They used a law that no longer exists.

“One of the charges used against Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was based on a law that has already been cancelled (repealed). A cancelled law cannot be used to judge or convict anybody. But in this case, they acted as if the cancelled law was still valid.

“This goes against the Nigerian Constitution, which says you cannot punish someone under a law that is no longer in force.

No victim, no witness, nobody harmed. In all the years of this case, not a single person came to court to say: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu threatened me, he intimidated me, he incited me, or I was affected by what he said.”

“There was no eyewitness, no victim, no report of investigation, nothing. Only edited online videos were presented. In normal criminal cases, you cannot convict someone without real evidence or real people affected.

“They threw out eight charges but used the same facts to convict on the remaining seven. All initial 15 charges against Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu were based on the same set of facts. But the court removed eight of them early in the case because they had no foundation.

“If the facts were not good enough to support eight charges, how can the same facts suddenly become good enough to convict on the remaining seven ? It makes no sense and shows clear inconsistency.

“The charge about importing a transmitter has already expired. One of the charges (count 7) said Mazi Nnamdi Kanu imported a transmitter.

But Nigerian law says such a charge expires after five years , meaning it can no longer be used after that time.

“Mazi Kanu has already been held for more than six years.

So this charge was already dead in law. Yet the judge still used it to sentence him to the maximum five years.This is completely against the law.

“He was sentenced to five years after already spending six years in detention: Even more shocking. Mazi Kanu has spent over six years in detention without trial, yet the court sentenced him to the maximum five-year sentence for count seven.

“Normally, the court must consider time already spent in detention before giving any sentence.But this basic rule was ignored. Nigerians should read the official court records themselves:

“We encourage Nigerian  journalists, civil society groups, lawyers, and ordinary citizens to get the Certified True Copies (CTCs) of the court proceedings.They are publicly available.

“When you read them for yourself, you will clearly see how many things were done wrongly, how basic procedures were ignored, and how justice was overturned.Everything we are saying is written in those official documents.

“In conclusion, the case of FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu shows deep problems on how this trial was handled. A cancelled law was used, no victim or eyewitness came forward, charges based on the same facts were treated differently, a time-expired charge was used to give maximum punishment. And Mazi Kanu was sentenced after already serving more time than the sentence itself.

These are not opinions, these are facts found in the official court records.

“The Nigerian people deserve a justice system that follows the law. What happened in this case is a clear warning that something is very wrong, and it must be corrected for the sake of truth, fairness, and the rule of law,” IPOB maintained.