By Divine Sam
A lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has accused the Nigerian judiciary of delaying the hearing of the appeal filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, alleging that irregularities surrounding his conviction have complicated the case.
Chidera made the allegation amid concerns over the delay by the Court of Appeal in scheduling a hearing for Kanu’s appeal challenging his conviction.
The lawyer attributed the delay to what he described as the failure of the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, to apply the transition provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA), 2022, during Kanu’s trial.
He argued that Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 legislation required the trial to be conducted under the updated law rather than the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013.
According to him, the judge declined to make the transition despite a formal application by Kanu, who represented himself during part of the proceedings.
Kanu’s defence team has maintained that the outcome of the trial could have been different if the proceedings had been conducted under the 2022 legislation.
Explaining his position, Chidera said the circumstances surrounding the trial had created difficulties for the prosecution in defending the conviction at the appellate level.
“The public and the legal community must understand why the state’s legal machinery has gone strangely quiet regarding the appeal. The consequence of Justice Omotosho’s emotional overreach and emotional response to the pro se defense is a state of total legal paralysis plaguing the prosecution’s appellate team.
“Ordinarily, a state machinery defending a high-profile conviction would rush to file briefs of argument and push for an expedited hearing. Instead, they are met with a brick wall of their own making.
“No defense for a dead law. How does a state counsel write a legal brief defending a conviction under a statute that has been explicitly repealed and replaced by the National Assembly?
The appellate court cannot cure a trial judge’s refusal to read or apply mandatory statutory commands. The official trial record stands as the most damning witness against the bench, capturing word-for-word the moment the defendant exposed the statutory requirement and the judge swatted it away.”
The lawyer described the judgment as a major legal challenge for the judiciary, insisting that the appeal would eventually have to be heard.
He said, “To be candid, I do not blame the judiciary for their reluctance to list the case for hearing. Justice Omotosho’s judgment is an uncomfortable landmine that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is seeking to exploit to blow the entire judiciary out of the water. But eventually, the case must be listed or Mazi Nnamdi Kanu released unconditionally, and that reckoning cannot be avoided forever.”
Chidera further questioned the legal foundation of the conviction, describing it as a ‘constitutional nullity’ that would be difficult for the government to defend.
“The public record reveals a stark reality: Justice Omotosho’s judgment is an unconstitutional nullity. By allowing personal animus and a pre-determined desire to convict to blind him to basic statutory commands, the trial judge engineered a self-sabotaged verdict.
“The government’s extreme reluctance to list the appeal for hearing or file a substantive response to the Appellant’s Brief speaks volumes. They cannot defend a conviction anchored on a repealed statute. For all observers of justice and the rule of law, the truth is clear: the conviction is dead and buried on law alone,” the lawyer said.
However, the allegations and legal interpretations expressed by Chidera represent his position on the case and are yet to be established as findings of the appellate court.
Leave a Reply