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.
In a statement issued on Monday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the family, the judge was accused of disregarding both the Constitution and binding Supreme Court directives in convicting Kanu on what the family described as “repealed and non-existent laws.”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.
The family noted that, despite months of legal arguments citing Section 36(12) of the Constitution, affirmation by Supreme Court authorities that a repealed law is no longer valid, and a binding Supreme Court directive to correct Count 7, Justice Omotosho ignored all these instructions and convicted Kanu on laws that do not exist.
The statement further alleged that the judge introduced a new legal theory on judgment day, relying on a transition or savings clause that had not been 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According to the family, a repealed law cannot create an offence or sustain a conviction. “A repealed statute is dead. A repealed statute cannot create an offence. A repealed statute cannot sustain a conviction.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 also 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— including the right to be tried under laws in force, to be informed of the charges, and not to be convicted under repealed or non-existent laws — are non-derogable and cannot be overridden.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 family added.
They described the judgment as unlawful, unconstitutional, and void, claiming 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.
The family 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 concluded.
