Kanu’s terrorism conviction will fail on appeal, says legal practitioner

From Okey Sampson, Umuahia

A renowned legal practitioner, Njoku Jude Njoku, has given reasons why the conviction of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, would not hold water at the Court of Appeal.

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had on 20 November convicted Mr Kanu of all seven counts of terrorism charges preferred against him by the Federal Government.

Mr Njoku, in faulting the judgment in a statement, said Mr Kanu was convicted under a law that no longer existed, even though a new law had already replaced it.

He said at the time judgment was delivered, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had been repealed, adding that section 36(12) of the Constitution forbids conviction unless the offence is defined by a law in force at trial and conviction.

Mr Njoku said it was unfortunate that Justice Omotosho was repeatedly reminded of this repeal by Mr Kanu himself, but that the only known reply of the judge was for the IPOB leader to wait for judgment, which he said has no place in law.

Giving further reasons why the judgment would not stand at the Court of Appeal, Mr Njoku revealed that the conviction was entered without jurisdiction.

“A conviction without jurisdiction is void from inception. Retrial is barred because the state prosecuted under a dead law when a living one existed.

“The conviction is legally dishonest. Again, retrial is barred to prevent the State from profiting from judicial self-contradiction. The only lawful outcome is discharge and acquittal,” Mr Njoku said.