The Indigenous People of Biafra(IPOB) has rejected Thursday’s judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja sentencing its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related charges.
The group maintained that Kanu “committed no offence known to Nigerian law” and that his agitation amounted simply to self-determination, which it said is a protected right under international agreements, in a statement released on Friday by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful.
Powerful criticised Justice James Omotosho’s ruling, claiming that the judge had neglected to apply Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that an individual cannot be found guilty of a crime unless it is specified in a written statute.
The statement read in part, “The IPOB wishes to inform the global community, diplomatic missions, international media, and lovers of freedom that we shall, in the coming days and weeks, lay bare the fundamental defects, contradictions, and illegalities that define the recent ruling issued by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
“For the avoidance of doubt, no gun, no grenade, no GPMG, no explosive, and no attack plan was ever found on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. None. No witness, civilian or military, ever testified before any court—at any stage—that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu committed any offence known to Nigerian or international law. This is an undeniable fact.
Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu’s 7-Count Terrorism Verdict Sparks Debate As Real Terrorists Walk Free
“The only thing the Federal Government continues to criminalise is self-determination, a right guaranteed under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
“Self-determination is a protected right, not a crime. Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon.”
The group further questioned the conviction’s legal foundation, calling the decision “unconstitutional” and claiming the judge relied on clauses that had been removed.
The 1999 Constitution’s Section 36(12) states unequivocally that “A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law.” According to IPOB, “Justice Omotosho has sadly demonstrated that he either cannot interpret or refuses to interpret simple English.”
“This constitutional provision is short, simple, and unambiguous. Our questions to Justice Omotosho—questions the entire world deserves answers to—are as follows: What written law did you rely on to purport to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu?
“Is that law extant, or has it been repealed? If the law has been repealed, can a repealed law ever qualify as a written law under Section 36(12)? Why did you ignore binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities stating that no Nigerian can be tried or convicted under a non-existent or repealed statute?”
The statement claims that IPOB would continue to interact with foreign organisations on what it defined as judicial and human-rights issues and plans to publish a comprehensive response to the ruling in the next few days.
The IPOB group reaffirmed its call for a vote overseen by the UN.
According to previous reports, Justice Omotosho ruled in Kanu’s absence that the IPOB leader’s commands imposing sit-at-home orders and his broadcasts on Radio Biafra constituted terrorism.
The court additionally decided that the prosecution’s evidence included Kanu’s purported involvement in attacks on security officials by Eastern Security Network members.
Join Our Social Media Channels:
WhatsApp: NaijaEyes
Facebook: NaijaEyes
Twitter: NaijaEyes
Instagram: NaijaEyes
TikTok: NaijaEyes
