Global Legal Community Moves Against Justice Omotosho’s Verdict in Nnamdi Kanu Case
Date: December 16, 2024
Across several jurisdictions, legal professionals are quietly coordinating a structured challenge to the conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Their focus rests on constitutional breaches and procedural failures that surrounded the ruling delivered by Justice Omotosho. Rather than relying on emotion, this analysis evaluates strict points of law and their unavoidable consequences.
Related report on Docunews Central
Legal Ground One: Conviction Under a Repealed Law
Charge:
The court convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu under a statute that had already been repealed before judgment.
Legal Basis:
Before judgment, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had ceased to exist. In its place, the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 governed all terrorism-related proceedings.
Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria prohibits conviction unless the offence is defined by a law in force at the time of trial and judgment.
Despite repeated reminders during proceedings, the court declined to resolve the issue immediately. However, under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, courts must take judicial notice of repealed statutes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this duty in NNPC v. Fawehinmi.
Consequence:
Without jurisdiction, the conviction lacks legal foundation. Because prosecution relied on a defunct statute, the lawful outcome remains discharge and acquittal.
Legal Ground Two: Judicial Self-Contradiction
Charge:
After acknowledging that conviction under a repealed law is unlawful, the court still proceeded to convict.
Legal Basis:
Once a court adopts a legal position that a party relies upon, it cannot later reverse that stance silently. In Ogoejeofo v. Ogoejeofo, Nigerian courts confirmed that judicial estoppel preserves fairness and legal certainty.
Consequence:
This reversal transformed the proceedings into a constitutional ambush. As a result, the conviction cannot withstand appellate review.
Legal Ground Three: Jurisdiction Deferred Yet Punishment Imposed
Charge:
The court postponed ruling on jurisdiction while exercising punitive authority.
Legal Basis:
In Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction must exist before a court acts. A judge cannot defer the source of judicial authority.
Consequence:
Every step taken without jurisdiction amounts to a nullity. Therefore, the conviction collapses automatically.
Legal Ground Four: Improper Use of a Savings Clause
Charge:
The court attempted to preserve a repealed statute through a savings clause.
Legal Basis:
Savings clauses permit orderly transition, not statutory resurrection. Section 97 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act mandates full transition to the new law.
Consequence:
By reviving a defunct statute, the court breached separation of powers, rendering the conviction constitutionally impossible.
Legal Ground Five: Fictional Combination of Laws
Charge:
The judgment relied on fragments of both repealed and current statutes.
Legal Basis:
Criminal liability must arise from a single identifiable written law. Section 36(12) forbids judicial collage.
Consequence:
A fictional statute cannot imprison a human being. The conviction is void.
Legal Ground Six: Failure to Take Judicial Notice of Repeal
Charge:
The court refused to acknowledge repeal as a matter of law.
Legal Basis:
Repeal requires judicial notice, not assumption. Supreme Court precedent makes this obligation mandatory.
Consequence:
Every subsequent act lacked lawful authority. The conviction remains null.
Legal Ground Seven: Compelled Defence Without Jurisdiction
Charge:
The court forced a defence despite the absence of jurisdiction.
Legal Basis:
Once jurisdiction fails, no court may compel participation. Doing so undermines the presumption of innocence.
Consequence:
The trial lost its adjudicatory character. Consequently, the conviction cannot stand.
Legal Ground Eight: Continuation of a Legally Futile Trial
Charge:
Proceedings continued after conviction became legally impossible.
Legal Basis:
Courts exist to resolve live legal disputes, not perform procedural rituals.
Consequence:
Retrial is barred. Acquittal becomes mandatory.
Extraterritorial and Rendition Violations
Nigeria lacked authority to prosecute broadcasts allegedly made from the United Kingdom without satisfying statutory extraterritorial conditions, including double criminality. No evidence established that the alleged broadcasts violated UK law.
UK Crown Prosecution Service – Criminal Jurisdiction
Additionally, no witness testified that the broadcasts were received or acted upon in Nigeria. Criminal liability requires demonstrable impact, not speculation.
Illegal Rendition from Kenya
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was abducted rather than extradited. Kenyan courts later declared the rendition unlawful. Nigerian courts cannot benefit from executive illegality.
Under Abacha v. Fawehinmi, Nigerian courts remain bound by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Final Legal Position
These seventeen defects represent only a fraction of the reversible errors identified so far. However, even one jurisdictional failure voids an entire criminal trial.
In law, speed never replaces legality. Courts exist to uphold constitutional order, not bypass it.
More legal analysis on Docunews Central
