The Nigerian judiciary is running from the appeal filed by IPOB chief, Nnamdi Kanu, due to irregularities within the judgment that convicted him, a lawyer, Christopher Chidera, Esq, has stated.
Chidera spoke amid the controversy surrounding the delay by the Court of Appeal in scheduling the listening to of the appeal filed by Kanu to problem his conviction.
The lawyer, whereas talking on the event, blamed the delay on the refusal of the Abuja Federal High Court presided over by Justice James Omotosho to transition the trial from the ‘repealed’ Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, TPAA, 2013, to the extant Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, TPPA, 2022, as mandated by the obligatory transition instructions in sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act.
He famous that the choose refused to make the transition even after Kanu, who took up his personal defence, made a proper software to that impact in the midst of the trial. Kanu’s defence group has argued that he wouldn’t have been convicted if the trial was carried out underneath the extant TPPA 2022.
Stating his views on why the appeal is being delayed, Chidera stated, “The public and the legal community must understand why the state’s legal machinery has gone strangely quiet regarding the appeal. The consequence of Justice Omotosho’s emotional overreach and emotional response to the pro se defense is a state of total legal paralysis plaguing the prosecution’s appellate team.
“Ordinarily, a state equipment defending a excessive-profile conviction would rush to file briefs of argument and push for an expedited listening to. Instead, they’re met with a brick wall of their very own making.
“No defense for a dead law. How does a state counsel write a legal brief defending a conviction under a statute that has been explicitly repealed and replaced by the National Assembly?
The appellate court cannot cure a trial judge’s refusal to read or apply mandatory statutory commands. The official trial record stands as the most damning witness against the bench, capturing word-for-word the moment the defendant exposed the statutory requirement and the judge swatted it away.”
The lawyer described the judgment as a landmine for the judiciary.
He stated, “To be candid, I do not blame the judiciary for their reluctance to list the case for hearing. Justice Omotosho’s judgment is an uncomfortable landmine that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is seeking to exploit to blow the entire judiciary out of the water. But eventually, the case must be listed or Mazi Nnamdi Kanu released unconditionally, and that reckoning cannot be avoided forever.”
Chidera additional described the judgment as a ‘constitutional nullity’ which the federal government can not defend.
“The public record reveals a stark reality: Justice Omotosho’s judgment is an unconstitutional nullity. By allowing personal animus and a pre-determined desire to convict to blind him to basic statutory commands, the trial judge engineered a self-sabotaged verdict.
“The authorities’s excessive reluctance to checklist the appeal for listening to or file a substantive response to the Appellant’s Brief speaks volumes. They can not defend a conviction anchored on a repealed statute. For all observers of justice and the rule of regulation, the reality is clear: the conviction is useless and buried on regulation alone,” the lawyer stated.
