The defence team of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has expressed concern over what it described as procedural irregularities and a lack of fair hearing.
The IPOB leader on Friday finally entered his defence before Justice James Omotosho at the Federal High Court, Abuja, after weeks of argument that he needed to be shown under what law he was being tried.
Following that, the court fixed November 20 for judgment in the terrorism case against him.
However, a briefing issued by a member of Kanu’s Global Defence Team, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., immediately after the court’s proceedings raised serious constitutional and procedural issues.
He explained that during the court session, Kanu repeatedly asked Justice Omotosho to specify the written law under which he was being tried.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu demanded repeatedly that the court identify the specific written law creating the alleged offence,” Ifedi stated.
“Despite several direct requests, no law was cited. Instead of addressing this constitutional requirement, the court moved on without clarification.”
Ifedi noted that Kanu based his argument on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), 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.”
He said Kanu maintained that his faith was in the Constitution and not at the discretion of any individual. “He told the court that no conviction can stand without a valid written law and that the Constitution is supreme,” Ifedi added.
The defence also drew attention to what it described as a procedural concern regarding the alleged use of a repealed law in the charge.
Ifedi explained that Kanu’s team made a formal motion to expunge his plea from the record on that ground, but the court did not address the issue in detail.
Another point of contention, according to the defence, was the court’s decision to proceed without final written addresses. Ifedi said the judge announced that he would not require final written addresses from either party before judgment—a move the defence found unusual.
“Final written addresses are a core part of a fair trial and a mandatory stage before judgment,” he said.
“They allow both sides to summarise their arguments and address points of law. Skipping that stage could raise questions about due process.”
Ifedi noted that Kanu, in response, reaffirmed his belief in constitutional supremacy and due process, stressing that no court could override the provisions of Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
The defence team said the events of the day have drawn public and legal concern. “What transpired in court today is not a normal judicial process,” Ifedi remarked.
“The actions and statements made in court reflect a troubling pattern of procedural irregularities and disregard for constitutional safeguards.”
He said the briefing was issued in the public interest to ensure transparency and to document the developments observed during the proceedings.
Leave a Comment