IPOB rejects the Federal High Court ruling sentencing Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment. Discover their legal interpretation and statements.
In a statement on Friday, the group’s prophet, Emma said Kanu had “committed any offence.” He based his argument on the claim that his conduct amounted to tone-determination. Emma described this as a right defended under transnational instruments.
IPOB rejected the Abuja Federal High Court ruling. The court sentenced Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on 7 terrorism- related counts.
He said the judgment delivered by Justice James Kolawole Omotosho failed to apply indigenous vittles relating to felonious persuasions.
The group said it would outline what it described as legal and procedural enterprises arising from the judgment.
“To be clear, no gun, grenade, GPMG, or net was ever set up on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. also, no attack plan was discovered. None,” he said. “No substantiation, mercenary or military, ever witnessed before any court that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu committed any offence. This applies to any stage of proceedings under Nigerian or transnational law. This is an inarguable fact.
This is a right guaranteed under Composition 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It’s also defended by Composition 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Additionally, it’s supported by Composition 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”
The security challenges in the Southeast increased. IPOB said this happed during Kanu’s time in the Department of State Services (DSS) guardianship. They added that incidents recorded during that period can’t be linked to him.
The group cited former security operations in the region. These include “Operation Python cotillion. ” They contended that there were abuses that hadn’t been addressed.
It claimed the court reckoned on vittles that were no longer in force. It also substantiated Section 36 (12) of the Constitution. This section states that no person shall be convicted of an offence unless it’s defined in a spoken law.
Yet, he noted that “Justice Omotosho has demonstrated that he can’t or refuses to interpret simple English. This is established in Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution. It easily states that a person shall not be condemned of a felonious offence. This is unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is specified in a spoken law.
“This indigenous provision is short, simple, and unequivocal. We’ve questions for Justice Omotosho. The entire world deserves answers to these questions. They’re as follows: What spoken law did you calculate on to purport to condemn Mazi Nnamdi Kanu?
Why did you ignore the binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities? These authorities state that no Nigerian can be tried or condemned under a missing or repealed enactment.”
IPOB said it intends to give a detailed response to the ruling. They also plan to continue their engagement with transnational bodies. It paraphrased its call for a vote supervised by the United Nations.
Justice Omotosho had held that Kanu’s broadcasts on Radio Biafra were acts of terrorism. He also held that directives relating to sit-at-home orders amounted to terrorism. He accepted substantiation linking him to attacks carried out by members of the Eastern Security Network (ESN).
Discover more from Urhobo Daily
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
