Kanu’s judgement was ‘painful ambush’ – Family reacts

By Vivian Okejeme Abuja

The family of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has formally reacted to the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho on Thursday, describing it as “a painful ambush” and a violation of constitutional rights.

A statement issued on Monday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu for the family accused the judge of disregarding both the Constitution and binding Supreme Court directives in convicting Kanu on what they described as “repealed and non-existent laws”.

“What happened in the courtroom of Justice James Omotosho was not justice — it was an ambush,” the statement said.

“After months of legal arguments citing Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court authorities affirming that a repealed law is dead, and the binding Supreme Court directive to correct Count 7,” he said, lamenting that “Justice Omotosho ignored every one of these commands and convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on laws that do not exist.”

The family alleged that the judge introduced a new legal theory on judgment day, relying on a transition or savings clause that had not been argued or raised during the trial.

“He invoked a clause to overturn the Constitution itself. This is ambush jurisprudence. This is not law,” the statement said.

According to the family, a repealed law cannot create an offence or sustain a conviction. “A repealed statute is dead. A repealed statute cannot create an offence. A repealed statute cannot sustain a conviction.

“No judge, regardless of personal views, can resurrect a dead law,” the statement added. They argued that Justice Omotosho’s reliance on the savings clause was legally impossible, noting that Kanu’s prior acquittal by the Court of Appeal had terminated all earlier charges, making the fresh charges a new case.

“Justice Omotosho applied the savings clause to a non-existent proceeding, which is a legal impossibility,” the family said.

The statement emphasized that fundamental rights under Section 36 of the Constitution — including the right to be tried under laws in force, to be informed of the charges, and not to be convicted under repealed or non-existent laws — are non-derogable and cannot be overridden.

“Yet this judgment did all three. Such a proposition is legally absurd and constitutionally dangerous,” the statement said.

The family called the judgment unlawful, unconstitutional, and void, saying it was achieved through ambush, reliance on laws that no longer exist, disobedience to the Supreme Court, denial of fair hearing, and a fabricated legal theory never presented in court.

They demanded the immediate nullification of the conviction and urged an end to judicial improvisation that undermines constitutional rights.

“Nigeria is a constitutional republic. Its judges must act like it,” the statement said.