The lawyer, Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, alleged {that a} overview of the judgment exhibits that the trial choose dedicated a elementary perversion of primary constitutional justice in convicting the agitator.
Chidera additional alleged that the choose “abandoned the official charge sheet, fabricated a brand-new theory of criminal liability after the defence had closed, imported an uncharged statutory offence (Section 3 of the TPAA 2013) inside his chambers, and sent Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to prison for accusations he was never called upon to answer”.
“Anyone who continues to use the word “alleged” when the catastrophe is staring them right in the face on Page 1 and Page 96 is being blatantly mischievous. You do not need to guess; you only need to test the judgment against the charge that was actually filed. Put the original charge side-by-side with the final verdict, and see the judicial fraud with your own eyes.”
Chidera famous that whereas the official indictment accused Nnamdi Kanu of making broadcasts “in furtherance of an act of terrorism” beneath Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), in his closing judgment, Justice Omotosho held that the printed itself constituted the first and preparatory act of terrorism.
He stated, “The plain reality is that the judge replaced the offence charged by the prosecution with a completely different offence at the point of judgment. This is like prosecuting an accused for helping someone paint a fence, only for the judge to deliver a verdict finding him guilty of building the entire house.
“The second distinct jurisdictional failure is the post-trial introduction of a brand-new statutory offence. Count six cited Section 1(2)(f) of the TPAA 2013. Section 3 (International Terrorism) seems nowhere on the indictment. In his closing written reasoning, Justice Omotosho pulled Section 3 of the TPAA 2013 out of skinny air, invoked its necessary life-imprisonment penalty, and manufactured allegations relating to diplomatic targets to label Kanu an “international terrorist”.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was never asked to enter a plea to Section 3, no witness testified to it, no exhibit proved it, and the defence was never given the opportunity to answer it. The judge manufactured a crime not pleaded and a statutory provision not charged to convict without any opportunity to defend.
“This is not a criticism a couple of incorrect date, a mistaken identify, or a minor typographical error in a cost sheet. It considerations the very offences for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted. Under Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, each accused individual has a non-negotiable proper to be told promptly, intimately, of the precise nature of the offence charged.
“That constitutional guarantee becomes completely meaningless if a court can introduce a different criminal accusation in its final judgment and convict on the strength of it. A court has zero authority to convict a citizen for an offence that was never charged. A judge is an impartial referee, not a prosecutor. He cannot rewrite the case after the defence has closed.
“Where is the innocent error in calling somebody a global terrorist beneath an unpleaded part of the legislation with out cost, discover, or proof? This is past sloppy adjudication—it is a premeditated perversion of the course of justice.”
Chidera insisted that the Court of Appeal cannot uphold the conviction due to what he described as defects in the Abuja Federal High Court judgment.
He stated, “An appellate courtroom looking for to uphold the conviction can not keep away from the issue by merely deleting Page 96 or placing out Section 3. It must clarify how the judgment can stand when the choose’s personal core reasoning moved solely exterior the cost sheet.
“The appellate court must confront the judgment as delivered. It cannot write a replacement judgment, invent a charge that was never filed, or deny Mazi Nnamdi Kanu his constitutional right to know the case he had to meet.
“Any try and uphold this conviction requires an appellate courtroom to both faux the choose didn’t say what he explicitly wrote on the report, or rewrite Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution. Both routes go away an indelible, unlawful perversion on open show.”
