Uchechi Kanu Questions Legality of Court’s Proceedings in Husband’s Terrorism Case.
Uchechi Kanu Questions Legality of Court’s Proceedings in Husband’s Terrorism Case.
Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, wife of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has strongly criticized the judgment that sentenced her husband to life imprisonment. The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, handed down the sentence on Thursday after convicting Kanu on all seven counts of terrorism charges brought against him by the Department of State Services (DSS). The court ruled that the prosecution presented sufficient credible evidence, and Kanu’s decision not to defend himself led to his conviction.
However, Uchechi expressed outrage over what she described as procedural irregularities during the trial. She argued that a judge cannot ask a defendant to open a defense on terrorism charges without first reading out the specific law under which the court is trying the accused. She claimed that Justice Omotosho simply read from a script handed to him during the sentencing and that he struggled to read some parts of his own written judgment. She emphasized that the Nigerian Constitution, particularly Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), mandates that an individual cannot be convicted of a criminal offense unless the offense is clearly defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law.
Uchechi also alleged that the judge ignored constitutional requirements by forcing her husband to respond under a repealed law, which Kanu refused. She highlighted that Omotosho refused to issue written rulings on serious applications, opting instead to read out some parts of the judgment while blocking Kanu’s right to submit a final address. She expressed her belief that this conduct was a clear case of selective justice, especially given that other figures like Sheikh Gumi walk freely despite similar allegations against them. Her comments underscore her belief that the trial was marred by procedural flaws and a disregard for constitutional protections.
