In light of the fact that IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal to challenge his conviction has been postponed, a lawyer representing Kanu has stated that Justice James Omotosho’s ruling is already dead when it reaches the appellate court.
As a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, Christopher Chidera, the agitator’s lawyer, claimed that reviewing the verdict reveals that the trial judge perverted basic constitutional justice in convicting the man.
Chidera further alleged that the judge “abandoned the official charge sheet, fabricated a brand-new theory of criminal liability after the defence had closed, imported an uncharged statutory offence (Section 3 of the TPAA 2013) inside his chambers, and sent Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to prison for accusations he was never called upon to answer”.
The judge’s decision, in his view, does not constitute a small error that an appeal court can rectify by bringing up concepts of substantial fairness under Nigerian constitutional law.
“We are not dealing with speculation, rumours, or subjective opinions,” the lawyer said, slamming the door on the idea that the flaws pointed out by Kanu’s defence team in the verdict are “mere allegations.” The stark, black-and-white pages of Justice Omotosho’s written judgement contain these proven, indisputable facts.Someone is being openly malicious if they keep using the phrase “alleged” even when the disaster is clearly visible on Pages 1 and 96. You need not speculate; rather, you need to compare the verdict with the actual charge. Compare the first accusation with the final decision and witness the judicial injustice for yourself.
Chidera pointed out that Justice Omotosho’s final ruling determined that the broadcast was the principal and preparatory act of terrorism, even though Nnamdi Kanu was officially charged with making broadcasts “in furtherance of an act of terrorism” under Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, TPAA 2013.
At the point of judgement, the judge substituted a totally different offence for the one the prosecution had charged, he stated plainly. It would be the legal equivalent of trying a man for assisting with fence painting and then having the judge pronounce him guilty of erecting the entire house.
“The second clear example of jurisdictional failure is the creation of a new statutory crime after the trial has already concluded. The TPAA 2013’s Section 1(2)(f) was pointed out in count six. The indictment does not include Section 3, which deals with international terrorism. In his concluding written reasoning, Justice Omotosho labelled Kanu as a “international terrorist” by citing an imaginary section of the TPAA 2013 that mandates a life sentence in jail and making up accusations about diplomatic targets.
There was never an opportunity for the defence to respond to Section 3, no witness testified to it, and no evidence proved it; furthermore, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was never asked to make a plea to it. This is not an appeal regarding an incorrect date, an incorrect name, or a small typographical error in a charge sheet; rather, the judge artificially created a crime that was not pleaded and a legislative provision that was not charged in order to acquit without a chance to defend. It has to do with the exact same crimes that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was found guilty of.
That constitutional guarantee becomes completely meaningless if a court can introduce a different criminal accusation in its final judgement and convict on the strength of it,” read one paragraph from the 1999 Constitution, which states that every accused person has an inalienable right to be informed promptly and in detail of the exact nature of the offence charged.
No court has the jurisdiction to find an individual guilty of a crime for which no charges were ever filed. Instead than taking sides, a judge acts as a neutral arbiter. After defence arguments have concluded, he will not be able to change the facts of the case. “Where is the harmless error in labelling someone an international terrorist under an unpleaded section of the law without charge, notice, or evidence?” This goes beyond careless decision-making; it is a deliberate distortion of justice.
Chidera maintained that the conviction cannot be upheld by the Court of Appeal because of what he deemed as flaws in the judgement of the Abuja Federal High Court.
To avoid the dilemma, an appellate court trying to maintain the conviction can’t do things like cross out Section 3 or delete Page 96, he said. “Any attempt to uphold this conviction requires an appellate court to either pretend the judge did not say what he explicitly wrote on the record or rewrite Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution.” This means that the court cannot write a replacement judgement, invent a charge that was never filed, or deny Mazi Nnamdi Kanu his constitutional right to know the case he had to meet.