IPOB Exposes Legal Violations in Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial

Also Read

The judgment delivered against our leader, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has exposed deeply troubling issues within the Nigerian justice system. What has unfolded in this case shows clearly that the rule of law was not followed, and ordinary Nigerians deserve to understand these violations in simple, clear terms.

1. A Law That No Longer Exists Was Used

One of the charges against Onyendu was based on a law that has already been repealed.

A cancelled law cannot be used to investigate, prosecute, or convict anyone.

Yet in this case, the court acted as if the law was still valid.

This directly violates the Nigerian Constitution, which states that no citizen can be punished under a law that is no longer in force.

2. No Victim, No Witness, Nobody Harmed

In all the years of this trial, not a single person appeared before the court to claim:

“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu threatened me,”

“He intimidated me,”

“He incited me,” or

“I was affected by what he said.”

There was:

No eyewitness,

No victim,

No complainant,

No investigation report,

Only edited online videos were tendered as evidence.

In any normal criminal justice system, you cannot convict a citizen without real evidence or real people affected.

3. Eight Charges Were Struck Out, Yet the Remaining Ones Used the Same Facts

The Federal Government initially brought 15 charges against Onyendu.

The court struck out 8 of them because they had no basis.

All 15 charges were built on the same set of facts.

If those facts were not strong enough to support the first 8 charges, how can they suddenly become strong enough to justify conviction on the remaining 7?

This inconsistency exposes a serious flaw in the judgment.

4. The Transmitter Charge (Count 7) Had Already Expired

One of the charges alleged that Onyendu imported a transmitter.

The law is clear: such a charge has a 5-year statute of limitation.

Mazi Kanu has already spent more than 6 years in detention.

Legally, that charge had expired and could not be used.

Despite this, the court used the expired charge to impose the maximum 5-year sentence, which goes against Nigerian law.

5. A 5-Year Sentence After 6 Years in Detention

Even more shocking is that Onyendu has already spent over six years in detention without trial.

The law requires courts to consider “time served” before sentencing.

Instead, the judge imposed a full 5-year sentence after Onyendu had already exceeded that period in custody.

This violates basic judicial norms.

6. Nigerians Should Read the Court Records

We call on journalists, civil society groups, lawyers, and all Nigerians to obtain the Certified True Copies (CTCs) of the court proceedings.

These documents are publicly available.

Anyone who reads them will see:

The legal errors,

The ignored procedures,

The contradictions in the case, and

How justice was undermined.

Everything we are stating is supported by those official documents.

Conclusion

The case of FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu exposes major problems in how this trial was conducted:

A repealed law was used,

No victim or eyewitness testified,

Identical facts were treated differently across charges,

A time-barred charge was used for maximum punishment,

And a sentence was issued after Onyendu had already spent more time than the sentence itself.

These are not opinions.

These are facts contained in the court’s own records.

The Nigerian people deserve a justice system that respects the rule of law.

What happened in this case is a clear warning that something is very wrong, and it must be corrected in the interest of truth, fairness, and justice.