The lawyer, Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, alleged {that a} assessment of the judgment reveals that the trial choose dedicated a elementary perversion of fundamental constitutional justice in convicting the agitator.
Chidera additional alleged that the choose “deserted the official cost sheet, fabricated a brand-new idea of legal legal responsibility after the defence had closed, imported an uncharged statutory offence (Section 3 of the TPAA 2013) inside his chambers, and despatched Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to jail for accusations he was by no means known as upon to reply”.
“Anyone who continues to make use of the phrase “alleged” when the disaster is staring them proper within the face on Page 1 and Page 96 is being blatantly mischievous. You don’t must guess; you solely want to check the judgment in opposition to the cost that was truly filed. Put the unique cost side-by-side with the ultimate verdict, and see the judicial fraud with your individual 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 last judgment, Justice Omotosho held that the printed itself constituted the first and preparatory act of terrorism.
He stated, “The plain actuality is that the choose changed the offence charged by the prosecution with a totally completely different offence at the purpose of judgment. This is like prosecuting an accused for serving to somebody paint a fence, just for the choose to ship a verdict discovering him responsible of constructing your entire home.
“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 last written reasoning, Justice Omotosho pulled Section 3 of the TPAA 2013 out of skinny air, invoked its obligatory life-imprisonment penalty, and manufactured allegations relating to diplomatic targets to label Kanu an “worldwide terrorist”.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was by no means requested to enter a plea to Section 3, no witness testified to it, no exhibit proved it, and the defence was by no means given the chance to reply it. The choose manufactured a criminal offense not pleaded and a statutory provision not charged to convict with none alternative to defend.
“This is not a criticism a few flawed date, a mistaken title, or a minor typographical error in a cost sheet. It issues the very offences for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted. Under Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, each accused particular person has a non-negotiable proper to learn promptly, intimately, of the precise nature of the offence charged.
“That constitutional assure turns into fully meaningless if a courtroom can introduce a unique legal accusation in its last judgment and convict on the power of it. A courtroom has zero authority to convict a citizen for an offence that was by no means charged. A choose is an neutral referee, not a prosecutor. He can not rewrite the case after the defence has closed.
“Where is the innocent error in calling somebody a world terrorist beneath an unpleaded part of the regulation 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 can not uphold the conviction on account of what he described as defects within the Abuja Federal High Court judgment.
He said, “An appellate courtroom looking for to uphold the conviction can not keep away from the issue by merely deleting Page 96 or putting out Section 3. It must clarify how the judgment can stand when the choose’s personal core reasoning moved completely exterior the cost sheet.
“The appellate courtroom should confront the judgment as delivered. It can not write a substitute judgment, invent a cost that was by no means filed, or deny Mazi Nnamdi Kanu his constitutional proper to know the case he needed to meet.
“Any try and uphold this conviction requires an appellate courtroom to both fake 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.”
