IPOB Opposes Life Sentence for Nnamdi Kanu, Calls Agitation Non-Criminal

The native inhabitants of Biafra have dismissed the Federal High Court's ruling in Abuja on Thursday, which sentenced their leader, Nnam...

The native inhabitants of Biafra have dismissed the Federal High Court's ruling in Abuja on Thursday, which sentenced their leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life in prison for seven terrorism-related charges.

In a statement released on Friday by its representative, Emma Powerful, the group asserted that Kanu "did not commit any offense recognized under Nigerian law" and emphasized that his activism was merely an exercise in self-determination, which it claimed is safeguarded by international agreements.

Strongly criticized the ruling made by Justice James Omotosho, alleging that the judge failed to apply Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that an individual cannot be found guilty of a crime unless the offense is outlined in a written law.

The statement said in part, “IPOB wants to let the worldwide community, embassies, international media, and those who value freedom know that in the next few days and weeks, we will expose the core flaws, inconsistencies, and unlawful aspects that characterize the recent decision made by Judge James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.”

To avoid any confusion, no firearm, no grenade, no general-purpose machine gun, no explosive device, and no attack strategy was ever discovered on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Not even a single one. No witness, whether civilian or military, has ever provided testimony in any court—at any point—that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu committed any crime recognized under Nigerian or international law. This is an irrefutable truth.

The sole aspect that the Federal Government keeps criminalizing is self-determination, a right protected by 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.

Self-determination is a safeguarded right, not an offense. Protests are not acts of terrorism, and seeking a referendum is not a threat.

IPOB further claimed that instability in the South-East increased during Kanu's detention by the Department of State Services, asserting that events occurring at that time could not be linked to him.

"It was Mazi Nnamdi Kanu who faced an attack by the Nigerian military during 'Operation Python Dance'. Members of the IPOB family were killed in Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, Emene, and other areas. No government official or soldier has been punished for these crimes. However, the same system is now trying to convict the victim," the statement further noted.

The group also challenged the legal foundation of the conviction, calling the decision "unconstitutional" and claiming the judge used outdated sections of the law.

IPOB stated, "Unfortunately, Justice Omotosho has shown that he either is unable to interpret or chooses not to interpret the straightforward English in Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which clearly states 'A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law'."

This constitutional clause is brief, straightforward, and clear. Our inquiries to Justice Omotosho—questions that the entire world deserves to have answered—are as follows: Which written law did you use to claim the authority to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu?

Is that law currently in effect, or has it been revoked? If the law has been revoked, can a revoked law ever be considered a written law under Section 36(12)? Why did you overlook binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court precedents which state that no Nigerian can be prosecuted or convicted under a statute that does not exist or has been repealed?

As per the statement, IPOB plans to issue a comprehensive reply to the ruling in the near future and will keep working with global organizations regarding what it refers to as legal and human rights issues.

The group restated its call for a UN-backed vote.

PUNCH Online stated that Justice Omotosho, in a ruling made without Kanu's presence, concluded that the IPOB leader's transmissions on Radio Biafra and his instructions enforcing stay-at-home directives constituted terrorism.

The court also decided that Kanu's supposed involvement in assaults on law enforcement officers by individuals from the Eastern Security Network was included in the prosecution's case.

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).