SERIOUS LEGAL IRREGULARITIES IN THE JUDGMENT AGAINST ONYENDU MAZI NNAMDI KANU

Also Read

 

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) wishes to draw the attention of Nigerians, legal practitioners, civil society organisations, and the international community to the serious legal inconsistencies that appeared in the recent judgment delivered against our leader, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

The issues observed in this case reveal troubling practices within the Nigerian judicial process. For the sake of clarity and public understanding, we outline the key concerns below.

1. Conviction Based on a Repealed Law

One of the charges reportedly used against Onyendu was founded on a law that had already been repealed.

A repealed law cannot be applied to convict any citizen under the Nigerian Constitution.

Despite this, the court proceeded as though the cancelled law was still valid, which directly contradicts constitutional provisions on due process.

2. No Victim, No Complainant, No Witness

Throughout the duration of this case, not a single person appeared before the court to claim:

That Mazi Nnamdi Kanu threatened them,

That he intimidated them,

That he incited them, or

That they suffered harm because of anything he said.

There was no eyewitness, no complainant, no investigation report, and no direct evidence presented—only edited online video clips.

Criminal conviction without a victim or credible evidence contradicts established legal standards.

3. Eight Charges Were Dismissed, Yet the Same Facts Were Used to Convict on Others

Originally, there were 15 charges.

The court struck out 8 charges at the early stage of the case because they lacked merit.

However, the remaining charges were based on the same facts that had already been judged insufficient.

If the underlying facts were too weak for 8 charges, they cannot suddenly become strong enough to justify conviction on the remaining ones.

This inconsistency raises serious questions about fairness and judicial coherence.

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

One of the charges accused Onyendu of importing a transmitter.

Under Nigerian law, any such charge has a 5-year statutory limitation.

Mazi Kanu has been detained for over 6 years, meaning this charge had already expired legally.

Despite this, the court still used the expired charge to impose the maximum sentence of 5 years, contrary to the law.

5. Sentenced to 5 Years After Spending More Than 6 Years in Detention

Even more concerning is that Onyendu had already spent over six years in detention without trial.

Standard legal practice requires the court to consider "time served" before issuing a sentence.

This principle was ignored, resulting in a situation where a 5-year sentence was imposed on someone who has already exceeded that time in custody.

6. Nigerians Should Read the Certified True Copies (CTCs)

We urge journalists, civil society groups, lawyers, academics, and ordinary Nigerians to obtain and read the Certified True Copies (CTCs) of the court proceedings.

These documents are publicly accessible.

They contain all the evidence that:

Procedures were not followed,

Established legal principles were ignored,

And justice was compromised.

Everything stated here is supported by the official court record.

Conclusion

The case of FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu highlights major legal irregularities, including:

Use of a repealed law,

Absence of witnesses or victims,

Contradictory treatment of identical facts,

Reliance on a time-barred charge,

And sentencing that ignores time already spent in detention.

These are not opinions but documented facts contained in the official case files.

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

What transpired in this case is a warning sign that serious reforms are urgently needed to restore public confidence and ensure that justice is not sacrificed for political expediency.