Family of Nnamdi Kanu Disagrees with Court’s Ruling, Cites Constitutional Protections
Family of Nnamdi Kanu Disagrees with Court’s Ruling, Cites Constitutional Protections
The family of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has expressed disagreement with the recent judgment issued by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In a statement released on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, they conveyed their stance “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity” regarding the court’s decision.
The family pointed out that they had raised multiple legal objections during the trial, including issues related to Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, Supreme Court rulings on repealed laws, and previous directives concerning earlier charges against Kanu.
They underscored the importance of constitutional protections, emphasizing that “no person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time,” a principle supported by prior Supreme Court decisions.
Expressing concerns about the legal reasoning behind the ruling, the family questioned the application of transition or savings clauses, suggesting that these may not be relevant in this case. They noted that the court’s reliance on such clauses was misplaced because, in their view, “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s matter was not pending” at the time.
They explained that the Court of Appeal had previously discharged and acquitted Kanu, effectively ending all charges against him. Therefore, they argued, any subsequent charges before Justice Omotosho constituted “a new case, commencing de novo.”
The family reiterated that once a case is terminated, it cannot be “saved” or revived through a transition clause. They also highlighted the constitutional rights protected under Section 36, asserting that “the right to be tried only under laws in force, to be informed of the exact charges, and not to be convicted under repealed or non-existent laws cannot be overridden.”
Addressing the hierarchy of legal authority, the statement declared, “No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court.”
They concluded by calling for strict adherence to constitutional provisions and legal procedures, emphasizing that “all proceedings should align with existing laws and established legal processes.”
It is noteworthy that the judgment, in which the Federal High Court sentenced Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment on multiple counts, was widely reported. The judge handed down the sentence on counts one, two, four, five, and six, opting for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Kanu was also sentenced to 20 years in prison on count three and five years on count seven, with no option for fines. Justice Omotosho convicted him on all seven counts of terrorism-related offenses.
