Table of Contents
- Condemnation of the Judgment
- Court's Error
- Final Address Ignored
- Violation of Fair Hearing
- Comparison with Boko Haram Case
- Call for Calm
A prominent member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze, has criticized the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Abuja, led by Justice James Omotosho, which sentenced the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment.
Eze emphasized that Justice Omotosho should not have proceeded with such a judgment while an appeal concerning jurisdiction and Kanu’s unlawful extradition to Nigeria was pending.
The APC leader described the court's ruling as inconsistent with established standards of legal practice in such situations.
Eze, who previously served as the Publicity Secretary of the defunct New Peoples Democratic Party (nPDP), further asserted that Justice Omotosho’s court made a legal error by failing to consider Kanu’s final written address.
It is important to note that Kanu had submitted a final address that many believe would have addressed the discrepancies in the entire trial.
On the day of the judgment, a dramatic turn of events unfolded when Justice Omotosho denied the IPOB leader the chance to make his concluding remarks.
Kanu was subsequently taken out of the courtroom, and the judgment was delivered in his absence.
Eze referenced Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, asserting that this legal provision was severely and unapologetically breached.
He stated that the judgment, in its entirety, represented a distortion of the law and a miscarriage of justice.
Eze recalled that just two days before Kanu’s conviction, on November 18, Boko Haram co-founder Mamman Nur received only a five-year prison sentence, despite being linked to the deaths of 2,000 innocent citizens.
He also pointed out that Islamist terrorist organizations, pursuing their jihadist agenda, continue to kill, destroy, and abduct innocent Nigerians, with little effective action from the current government to address the crisis.
Eze urged for calm, expressing his belief that “Nnamdi Kanu will eventually regain his freedom. His trial, conviction, and sentence clearly violated Nigerian laws and relevant international human rights instruments.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the judgment against Nnamdi Kanu?
Nnamdi Kanu was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Federal High Court in Abuja for his role as the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Why did Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze criticize the judgment?
Eze condemned the judgment as a violation of legal standards, arguing that the court should have waited for the appeal regarding jurisdiction and Kanu's extradition to be resolved.
What does Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution provide?
Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing in legal proceedings.
Eze Chidiebere Paul
I'm dedicated to creating high-quality content that informs, inspires, and delights. If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to get in touch. Happy reading!
