Nnamdi Kanu didn’t forfeit his right of defense – IPoB

Nnamdi Kanu didn’t forfeit his right of defense – IPoB

By Steve Oko

The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, has debunked media reports that its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, forfeited his right of defense in his on-going trial by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

This is coming after Justice Omotosho on Friday, fixed November 20, for judgment in the seven counts of terrorism charge against Kanu.

IPoB in a statement by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, said that contrary to the media reports, Kanu never forfeited his defense.

“The false claim that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has “forfeited his right to defense” in the ongoing trial before Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, is a desperate lie meant to mislead the public and cover up an illegal process”, IPoB said.

Describing Kanu’s trial as “a sham because there is no valid law upon which he was charged”, IPoB insisted that Kanu had no case to answer.

The statement further read:”Let the truth be clear: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has not forfeited anything. What is happening in court is not a fair trial but a political show.

“Up till today, neither Justice Omotosho nor Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, the government’s lead prosecutor, has been able to point to any valid, existing law that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu supposedly broke.

“Their silence speaks volumes — it is a quiet confession that this entire case has no legal foundation.”

IPoB asked:”Can anyone be prosecuted or convicted without a living law that clearly defines the offense and prescribes a punishment?

Citing  Section 36(12) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, IPoB said:“A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law.”

The statement further read:”This means you cannot charge or convict anyone unless the law exists in black and white. No judge or lawyer can twist that. The Supreme Court has said the same thing many times — in Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007), and NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998). Where there is no law, there can be no trial, no conviction, and no justice.

“But instead of obeying this clear rule, Justice Omotosho keeps trying to force Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to “open his defense,” as if pretending there’s a valid case will make it real. This is wrong. It’s a misuse of power and a clear violation of fair hearing. You cannot force a man to defend himself against a ghost charge.

“So we ask again:Under which law is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu being tried?

What Act of the National Assembly defines his supposed offense?

And by what right does a judge compel a defense where no offense in law exists?”

IPoB further said:”Nigerians deserve honest answers, not propaganda. Everyone should read Section 36(12) and know their rights — it protects all of us from tyranny. Any court that ignores the Constitution becomes part of the problem, not the solution.”

The pro-Biafra movement reaffirmed its unalloyed support for its leader for not opening defense in the trial as doing so will only legitimise an illegitimacy.

“IPOB fully supports Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s stand in refusing to legitimize this illegality by entering a defense. The truth is unshakable: no valid law supports this case — none whatsoever.”

IPoB expressed shock that the Court fixed date for judgment even when it did not allow the submission of the final written addresses of both parties.

“Now, Justice Omotosho says he will give judgment without even allowing final addresses from both sides. That’s laughable and unheard of in criminal law”.