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.
In a statement on Friday by its spokesman, Emma Powerful, the group faulted the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, accusing the judge of refusing to apply Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that a person shall not be convicted of an offence unless it is defined in a written law.
The statement read in part, “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.
“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.”
IPOB also argued that insecurity in the South-East escalated while Kanu was in the custody of the Department of State Services, saying incidents recorded during that period could not be attributed to him.
“It was Mazi Nnamdi Kanu who was attacked by the Nigerian military during ‘Operation Python Dance’. It was IPOB family members who were massacred at Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, Emene, and other locations. Not one government officer or soldier has been held accountable for these atrocities. Yet the same system now seeks to convict the victim,” the statement added.
The group further questioned the legal basis for the conviction, alleging that the judge relied on repealed provisions.
IPOB said, “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“Is that law extant, or has it been repealed? If the law has been repealed, can a repealed law ever qualify as a written law under Section 36(12)?”
The PUNCH
