The Okwu Kanu family has formally rejected the recent judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which sentenced detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on terrorism charges.
In a strongly worded statement released on Monday and signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the family, they described the court’s decision as “a painful ambush” and a violation of fundamental constitutional rights.
Speaking “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity,” the family accused Justice Omotosho of disregarding both the Nigerian Constitution and binding Supreme Court directives in convicting their son on what they termed “repealed and non-existent laws.”
The statement highlighted multiple legal concerns, including Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which stipulates that no person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time. According to the family, Supreme Court rulings support this principle, yet Justice Omotosho ignored these commands.
“After months of legal arguments citing Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court authorities affirming that a repealed law is dead, and the binding Supreme Court directive to correct Count 7, Justice Omotosho ignored every one of these commands,” the statement read.
The family challenged the judge’s reliance on a transition or savings clause, arguing that such provisions only apply to cases pending at the time of repeal. They emphasized that Kanu’s case was not pending since the Court of Appeal had previously discharged and acquitted him, thereby terminating all charges.
“The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges. When the Federal Government filed fresh charges before Justice Omotosho, it was a new case, commencing de novo,” the statement explained.
The Okwu Kanu family further contended that fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution, including the right to be tried only under laws in force, to be informed of exact charges, and not to be convicted under repealed laws, cannot be overridden by any transition clause.
“No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court. Yet this judgment did all three. Such a proposition is legally absurd and constitutionally dangerous,” they declared.
The family insisted that the judgment was “unlawful, unconstitutional, and void,” achieved through what they called “ambush, reliance on laws that no longer exist, disobedience to the Supreme Court, and denial of fair hearing.”
Justice Omotosho had earlier convicted Kanu on seven counts of terrorism offences, sentencing him to life imprisonment on counts one, two, four, five, and six, while handing down a 20-year jail term on count three and a five-year term on count seven, both with no option of fine.
The IPOB leader, who is currently serving his sentence at Sokoto Correctional Centre, was convicted following terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.