The family of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has rejected the recent judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing the ruling as flawed and inconsistent with constitutional provisions.
In a statement issued on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, the family said it received the judgment “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity,” insisting that several critical legal issues raised during the proceedings were not adequately addressed.
According to the family, they drew the court’s attention to “Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions on repealed laws, and previous directives related to earlier charges,” but these concerns were not reflected in the final ruling.
They stressed that constitutional safeguards must not be overlooked, noting, “No person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in its previous judgments.”
The family also questioned the court’s reliance on a transition or savings clause, arguing that it was misapplied in Kanu’s case. “We have concerns about the application of transition or savings clauses and how they relate to this case,” the statement read.
They maintained that the clause could not be invoked to revive charges that had been previously nullified. “The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges. The subsequent charges before Justice Omotosho constituted a new case, commencing de novo. A case that was terminated cannot be ‘saved’ by a transition clause,” they stated.
The family further argued that the ruling undermined fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution, including the right to be tried only under laws currently in force, the right to clear charges, and protection from conviction under repealed or non-existent laws.
“No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court,” the statement added.
They called for strict adherence to constitutional provisions and established judicial processes, emphasizing that “all proceedings should align with existing laws and procedures.”
PUNCH Online had earlier reported that the Federal High Court sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment on counts one, two, four, five, and six, opting against the death penalty. The court also imposed a 20-year sentence on count three and a five-year term on count seven, both without an option of fine. Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu on all seven counts of terrorism.
The family reiterated its resolve to continue seeking legal redress, insisting that the judgment cannot stand on the strength of the constitutional issues they believe were overlooked.
