Nnamdi Kanu’s Defence Team Accuses Trial Judge of Tyranny, Says Conviction Cannot Survive Appeal

The defence team of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has accused the judge who convicted him of alleged judicial misconduct, insisting that his conviction cannot survive the appeal currently awaiting hearing at the Court of Appeal.

The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium made the allegations through its lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, while speaking on the delay in the hearing of Kanu’s appeal challenging his conviction.

Kanu’s lawyers and family members have reportedly expressed concern that the appeal has yet to be listed for hearing at the Court of Appeal. The delay has also prompted IPOB to direct its members to boycott activities of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The defence team, which has repeatedly challenged the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s conviction, accused the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, of disregarding the Supreme Court and failing to apply relevant provisions of the law during the proceedings.

According to Ifedi, Kanu had formally asked the court to transfer his trial from the repealed Terrorism Act 2013 to the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, citing what the defence described as mandatory transition provisions under Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 legislation.

However, the lawyer alleged that the judge rejected the application without properly considering the provisions cited by the defence.

“What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?” Ifedi asked.

Speaking on behalf of the defence consortium, he further accused Omotosho of treating Kanu as though his constitutional rights did not apply to him.

Ifedi argued that Kanu would not have been convicted if the trial had been conducted under the 2022 terrorism legislation, claiming that the newer law contained stricter evidence requirements, safeguards and clearer legal definitions.

He alleged that the prosecution’s case, based on allegations dating back to 2015, would not have survived the requirements of the newer legislation.

“If the judge had followed the law and moved the trial, the charges would have collapsed and Kanu would have walked free. To guarantee a conviction, Omotosho locked the trial inside a dead law,” the lawyer alleged.

The defence team further argued that the alleged failure to apply the relevant statutory provisions amounted to a violation of Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which prohibits the conviction of anyone for an offence unless it is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law.

Ifedi also cited the Supreme Court decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, arguing that a court loses jurisdiction where mandatory legal requirements governing its proceedings are not followed.

“The moment Omotosho refused to move the case under Sections 97 and 98(2), he lost the legal authority to judge it,” he said.

Describing the judgment as vulnerable to challenge, the lawyer insisted that the Court of Appeal could not overlook what the defence considers fundamental errors in the trial proceedings.

He maintained that the appellate court could not disregard the court record or act as though the trial had been transferred to the 2022 legislation when, according to the defence, the application was rejected.

“You cannot rescue a conviction built in direct, open defiance of the Constitution,” Ifedi added.

The allegations represent the defence consortium’s position on the case and the legal grounds it intends to pursue in challenging Kanu’s conviction.