The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has denied reports that its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has forfeited his right to defense in the ongoing case before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
IPOB said in a statement released on Friday and signed by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful that the reports were false and misleading. The group said the reports do not reflect the actual proceedings in court. It maintained that Kanu has not abandoned his right to defend himself but continues to insist on a fair and lawful trial.
“Let the truth be clear: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has not forfeited anything. What is happening in court has raised serious legal questions that need to be addressed within the limits of the law,” the statement read.
The group said it was concerned that neither the trial judge nor the prosecution had clearly identified any law under which Kanu was being tried.
It pointed to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that “a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefore is prescribed in a written law.”
According to IPOB, the constitutional provision means that an individual cannot be prosecuted or convicted for an offence that has not been clearly defined in existing legislation.
The group further referenced previous judicial authorities such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), Attorney-General of the Federation v. Abubakar (2007), and NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) to support its position.
The statement noted that Kanu’s insistence on adherence to the Constitution was not an act of defiance but a legitimate demand for the observance of due process.
IPOB added that compelling him to open his defense in the absence of a clearly defined charge would amount to a breach of his right to fair hearing.
The group posed several questions to the authorities, asking under which law Kanu was being tried and what Act of the National Assembly defined his alleged offence. It also called for transparency and respect for the rule of law in the judicial process.
IPOB reaffirmed its support for Kanu’s position in court and appealed for calm among its members and the general public. The statement emphasized that the matter should be resolved in accordance with constitutional provisions and established legal standards.
It further expressed concern over reports that the presiding judge might deliver judgment without allowing final addresses from both the defense and the prosecution, describing such a step as inconsistent with standard judicial procedure.
“The right to fair hearing is fundamental to every citizen. Any process that overlooks this principle does not serve justice,” the statement added.
Leave a Comment