Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, wife of Nnamdi Kanu, has vehemently condemned the life sentence imposed on her husband. The Federal High Court in Abuja delivered this verdict. She accused the trial judge of ignoring key constitutional requirements during the judgment proceedings.
Wife of IPOB Leader Questions Judicial Process
Uchechi maintains that a judge must articulate the specific written law governing any terrorism charge. This must happen before asking a defendant to present a defense. She asserted the judge read from a prepared script. Furthermore, she noted the judge struggled with some judgment pronunciations.
Her statements followed the ruling. This judgment sentenced Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, to life imprisonment. He faced conviction on seven terrorism charges.
Court’s Position on Terrorism Conviction
Justice James Omotosho issued the judgment. He found the prosecution provided sufficient evidence for its case. The court stated Kanu offered no defense. He opted to rely on the prosecution’s evidence instead. This left the judge with no alternative outcome.
Uchechi Kanu’s Detailed Allegations
Uchechi elaborated on her concerns. “In Nigeria, a judge cannot ask a defendant to open a defense on terrorism-related charges,” she explained. “This is without first stating the written law under which the court is trying that person.”
“The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, Section 36, is clear,” she continued. “It mandates that no person shall be convicted unless the offense is defined and penalty prescribed in a written law.”
She labeled Omotosho’s actions as “a script.” It was a “written script for him to read out,” she asserted. “Everyone heard him. Everyone saw him reading. He could barely read his own judgment’s words. How interesting that was.”
“I immediately posted about today’s injustice,” Uchechi stated. “Omotosho ignored the Constitution. It requires convictions only for written offenses.”
“He compelled Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to plead under a repealed law. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu refused,” she added. “He demanded to see the written law before entering a defense. That never happened.”
“Omotosho refused to issue written rulings on significant applications. You heard him reading. He counted thousands of lines and hours of accounts,” she remarked. “Yet, he declined to provide a written ruling. This should have been done first. It never was.”
“He instructed Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to include all objections in a final address. Then he blocked that final address,” Uchechi concluded. “If you were Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, you would share his outrage this afternoon.”
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has a right. It is his right to submit a final address in writing. But Omotosho obstructed this. He instead chose to read what she called “nonsense counts.”
About the Author
