Lawyer gives reasons Kanu’s conviction won’t stand at appeal court 

 

Lawyer gives reasons Kanu’s conviction won’t stand at appeal court

Legal luminary, Njoku Jude Njoku, has adduced reasons the conviction of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, would not be sustained at the court of appeal.

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

Kanu who represented himself at the trial court, has vowed to appeal to judgment at the appellate court

Meanwhile, Barrister Njoku in a write-up released Tuesday evening, faulted the judgement.

The document entitled:”LAWYERS ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE SECRETLY & QUIETLY ASSEMBLING THE MISSILES THAT WILL DESTROY OMOTOSHO’S JUDICIAL RASCALITY AGAINST KANU”, was issued, was released Tuesday evening.

It read:”🚀 MISSILE 1
CHARGE
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted under a law that no longer existed, even though a new law had already replaced it.

PROOF
At the time judgment was delivered, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had been repealed.
The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 was already in force and governing the trial.
Section 36(12) of the Constitution forbids conviction unless the offence is defined by a law in force at trial and conviction.
Justice Omotosho was repeatedly reminded of this repeal by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu himself. “Show me the law” Kanu asked Omotosho repeatedly.
Instead of deciding the issue, the judge repeatedly said: “wait for judgment.”
Under section 122 Evidence Act, repeal is a matter of law requiring judicial notice, not delay.
NNPC v. Fawehinmi: courts must take judicial notice of statutes and repeal automatically or else they act without jurisdiction.
CONSEQUENCE
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 only lawful outcome is discharge and acquittal.
🚀 MISSILE 2
CHARGE
After admitting that conviction under a repealed law is illegal, the judge still went ahead and convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

PROOF
On record, Justice Omotosho accepted the basic legal truth: you cannot convict under a repealed law.
This admission was made while Kanu was unrepresented and relying on the court’s candour.
Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a court cannot accept a legal position and later act against it.
Ogoejeofo v. Ogoejeofo: courts are bound by positions they induce parties to rely upon.
The court later reversed itself silently in judgment.
CONSEQUENCE
The proceedings became a constitutional ambush.
The conviction is legally dishonest.
Retrial is barred to prevent the State from profiting from judicial self-contradiction.
🚀 MISSILE 3
CHARGE
The court refused to decide whether it had legal power to try Kanu, but still jailed him.

PROOF
Jurisdiction was challenged repeatedly in writing and orally.
Madukolu v. Nkemdilim: jurisdiction must exist before a court acts.
Justice Omotosho deferred jurisdiction to judgment.
A court cannot postpone the source of its own authority.
CONSEQUENCE
Every step taken by Justice Omotosho was a legally nullity.
The trial was conducted without jurisdictional.
The conviction collapses automatically.
🚀 MISSILE 4
CHARGE
The court used a “savings clause” to keep a dead law alive and jail Kanu.

PROOF
Section 98(3) TPPA was cited as justification.
Savings clauses preserve continuity only through transition, not against transition.
Section 97 TPPA mandates movement to the new law nothing else.
Justice Omotosho acknowledged “transition” in his judgment but never transitioned anything.
CONSEQUENCE
The court resurrected a corpse statute.
This violates separation of powers.
The conviction is constitutionally impossible.
🚀 MISSILE 5
CHARGE
Kanu was tried under a mixture of old and new laws that does not exist anywhere in Nigerian law.

PROOF
Parts of the judgment rely on TPAA (repealed).
Other parts reference TPPA (not applied).
Criminal liability must arise from one identifiable law, not a judicial collage.
Section 36(12) requires a single written law.
CONSEQUENCE
A fictional law cannot imprison a human being.
The entire trial is a legal hallucination.
Conviction is void.
🚀 MISSILE 6
CHARGE
The judge refused to take judicial notice that the law had been repealed.

PROOF
Repeal is a matter of law, not evidence.
Section 122 Evidence Act mandates judicial notice.
NNPC v. Fawehinmi makes this duty compulsory.
Justice Omotosho instead said “assume without conceding.”
CONSEQUENCE
A court cannot “assume” its own jurisdiction.
Every act thereafter lacked legal authority.
Conviction is null.
🚀 MISSILE 7
CHARGE
The court forced Kanu to defend himself even after accepting that no lawful conviction could arise.

PROOF
Repeal was acknowledged.
Defence was still compelled.
A court cannot force defence where jurisdiction is absent.
This reverses the presumption of innocence.
CONSEQUENCE
The proceedings became coercive.
The trial lost adjudicatory character.
Conviction cannot stand.
🚀 MISSILE 8
CHARGE
The trial continued after it had already become legally pointless.

PROOF
Once repeal was accepted, no conviction could lawfully follow.
All subsequent proceedings served no legal purpose.
Courts exist to adjudicate lawfully, not to perform rituals.
CONSEQUENCE
The trial became punitive theatre.
Retrial is barred.
Acquittal is mandatory.
Understood. Same pressure. Same clarity. No tapering.

Below is BATCH 2 — continuing the recast of EXISTING missiles into plain-charge / hard-proof / no-escape consequence format.

🔥 RECoded LEGAL MISSILES (PLAIN-CHARGE FORMAT)
BATCH 2 — JURISDICTION, FOREIGN ELEMENT & RENDITION
🚀 MISSILE 9
CHARGE
Nigeria had no right to try Mazi Nnamdi Kanu for alleged broadcasts made in the United Kingdom.

PROOF
The prosecution’s case was anchored on broadcasts made from London, United Kingdom.
Criminal jurisdiction is territorial unless strictly expanded by statute.
The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act requires compliance with extraterritorial gateways, including double criminality.
No evidence was led that Kanu’s alleged broadcasts were criminal offences under UK law.
Justice Omotosho never determined where the offence occurred before assuming jurisdiction.
CONSEQUENCE
Jurisdiction was assumed, not earned.
A Nigerian court cannot jail a man for conduct lawfully done abroad.
The conviction is void from inception.
🚀 MISSILE 10
CHARGE
The court never proved that anything Kanu allegedly said was heard or acted upon in Nigeria.

PROOF
No witness testified that they listened to Kanu’s broadcasts.
No evidence of reception, audience, or Nigerian listener was produced.
Speech cannot intimidate, incite, or terrorise in a vacuum.
Criminal law requires impact, not imagination.
CONSEQUENCE
Essential elements of the offence were missing.
The prosecution proved content, not effect.
Conviction collapses automatically.
🚀 MISSILE 11
CHARGE
The prosecution secretly removed “London, United Kingdom” from the charge after spying on Kanu’s legal consultation.

PROOF
During a October meeting at DSS headquarters, the British Consul met with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu raised the legality of trying him in Nigeria for an offence allegedly committed in the UK.
DSS recorded and listened to that lawyer-client conversation.
Shortly after, the prosecution removed the UK location from the charge sheet.
This was a deliberate attempt to evade territorial jurisdiction scrutiny.
CONSEQUENCE
The charge was manipulated through illegal eavesdropping.
Prosecutorial misconduct of this nature poisons the entire case.
The conviction is unsalvageable.
🚀 MISSILE 12
CHARGE
Kanu was abducted, not extradited — and Nigerian courts cannot try people kidnapped from foreign countries.

PROOF
Kanu was forcibly abducted from Kenya.
No extradition request was made.
No Kenyan court approved his transfer.
Section 46(1) ACJA requires lawful arrest and presentation before a competent court.
Kenyan courts later declared the abduction illegal.
CONSEQUENCE
Custody was unlawful.
Jurisdiction never arose.
The entire trial is void ab initio.
🚀 MISSILE 13
CHARGE
A court cannot benefit from an illegal abduction to secure a conviction.

PROOF
The State chose kidnapping over lawful extradition.
International law and the African Charter forbid arbitrary arrest and transfer.
Nigerian courts are bound by the African Charter (Abacha v. Fawehinmi).
Justice Omotosho ignored binding treaty obligations.
CONSEQUENCE
The trial legitimised executive lawlessness.
Jurisdiction was morally and legally bankrupt.
Retrial is barred.
🚀 MISSILE 14
CHARGE
The court ignored foreign judgments declaring Kanu’s abduction illegal.

PROOF
Kenyan High Court decisions condemning the rendition were pleaded.
The prosecution did not challenge them.
Courts must give effect to uncontroverted judicial findings.
Silence is admission in law.
CONSEQUENCE
The trial proceeded in defiance of binding facts.
The conviction is jurisdictionally poisoned.
It cannot stand.
🚀 MISSILE 15
CHARGE
The doctrine of “male captus bene detentus” cannot save this trial.

PROOF
That doctrine is a dying common-law relic.
It cannot override:
Nigerian statutes (s.46(1) ACJA, s.76(1)(d)(iii) TPPA.
the African Charter,
or international human-rights obligations.
TPPA prescribes extradition, not abduction.
CONSEQUENCE
The court relied on an obsolete doctrine to excuse illegality.
This is per incuriam.
Conviction is void.
🚀 MISSILE 16
CHARGE
The court never proved “double criminality” as required by law.

PROOF
Section 76(1)(d)(iii) TPPA requires that alleged foreign conduct be criminal in both countries.
No evidence was led on UK criminal law.
No finding was made that Kanu committed any offence under UK law.
CONSEQUENCE
A mandatory jurisdictional gateway was never crossed.
The court never entered lawful territory.
Conviction collapses.
🚀 MISSILE 17
CHARGE
The trial court punished Kanu for insisting on legality.

PROOF
Jurisdictional objections were treated as delays.
The court elevated “speed” over constitutional compliance.
Rights were reframed as obstruction.
CONSEQUENCE
This reverses the hierarchy of law.
Courts exist to protect legality, not suppress it.
The trial is unconstitutional.
This is the first 17 missiles out of 1, 525 (which are reversible errors and infractions made by the Justice Omotosho in his haste to convict Kanu).