Following the recent judgment of life jailed handed over to leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, the family of jailed IPOB leader on Monday rejecting the judgment, citing legal irregularities.
In a statement issued on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, the family said it was speaking “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity” regarding the court’s decision.
“We raised several legal points in court, including Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions on repealed laws, and previous directives related to earlier charges,” the family said
The family in the statement also emphasised the importance of constitutional safeguards, stating, “No person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time,” and added that previous Supreme Court rulings support this principle.
Regarding the legal reasoning applied in the ruling, the family said, “We have concerns about the application of transition or savings clauses and how they relate to this case.”
The statement also addressed the court’s reliance on a transition or savings clause, noting that it may not apply because, in the family’s view, “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s matter was not pending.”
They added, “The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges,” and explained that the subsequent charges before Justice Omotosho initiated “a new case, commencing de novo.”
The family highlighted the importance of constitutional protections, saying, “A case that was terminated cannot be ‘saved’ by a transition clause.”
They also raised concerns about fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution, noting 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“the right to be tried only under laws in force, to be informed of the exact charges, and not to be convicted under repealed or non-existent laws cannot be overridden.”
Regarding the hierarchy of legal authority, the statement added, “No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court.”
The statement concluded with a call for adherence to the Constitution and established legal processes, noting, “All proceedings should align with existing laws and procedures.”
