Amidst ongoing controversy over the delayed listing of Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal, lawyer Onyedikachi Ifedi has accused the trial court of operating like a tribunal determined to convict the IPOB leader at all costs [cite: 1]. In a statement on Saturday, Ifedi condemned the proceedings under Justice James Omotosho as a “public execution of the Nigerian Constitution,” citing a litany of legal violations [cite: 2, 4].....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

Ifedi alleged that the court convicted Kanu under a repealed 2013 law rather than the active 2022 Terrorism Act, a direct violation of Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which requires criminal offenses to be based on written, in-force laws [cite: 5, 6]. Furthermore, the lawyer accused the judge of intellectual dishonesty by refusing to take judicial notice of the 2022 repeal, as mandated by the Evidence Act, and by ignoring the National Assembly’s explicit command to migrate pending proceedings to the new Act [cite: 8, 9, 11]. Ifedi concluded that these cumulative evasions demonstrate that the verdict was “written before the trial ever began” [cite: 12].

Option 2: Journalistic Style (More descriptive)

JUDICIAL REBELLION: Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Was a Sham Designed to Imprison Him, Says Counsel

With tensions rising over the prolonged delay in hearing Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal, his defense team has launched a blistering new attack on the conduct of his original trial. Lawyer Onyedikachi Ifedi has declared that the proceedings presided over by Justice James Omotosho were not a search for justice, but rather a “pre-engineered conviction” overseen by a tribunal bent on securing a guilty verdict by any means necessary [cite: 1, 2].

Ifedi accused Justice Omotosho of openly defying the constitution, the Evidence Act, and the National Assembly to achieve a predetermined outcome [cite: 12]. The most serious charge leveled by the lawyer is that the court sentenced Kanu under a “legal corpse”—the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013—instead of the only valid law at the time, the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 [cite: 5, 6].

Describing the court’s refusal to acknowledge the 2022 repeal as “intellectual dishonesty,” Ifedi argued that the entire trial is an “absolute nullity” based on Supreme Court precedents [cite: 8, 10]. The lawyer stated, “Justice Omotosho did not convict under the living law of the land. He convicted on a legal corpse” [cite: 6].

Option 3: Formal Press Release Format

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Nnamdi Kanu’s Legal Team Accuses Trial Court of Violating the Constitution and Evidence Act to Secure Conviction

ABUJA, Nigeria – Legal counsel for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has issued a scathing statement decrying the conduct of the trial court that led to the IPOB leader’s conviction. Amidst the ongoing controversy surrounding the delay in listing Kanu’s appeal, Ifedi characterizes the initial trial as a “tribunal operating under a predetermined directive,” where the Nigerian Constitution was treated as an “inconvenient obstacle” [cite: 1, 2].

Mr. Ifedi outlined multiple constitutional breaches committed by the court under Justice James Omotosho:

1. Violation of Written Law: Ifedi stated that the court convicted Kanu under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, ignoring the fact that the National Assembly had replaced it with the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. This constitutes a violation of Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which prohibits conviction for an offense not defined in a written law in force at the time [cite: 5, 6].

2. Refusal of Judicial Notice: The lawyer accused Justice Omotosho of intellectual dishonesty for refusing to take mandatory judicial notice of the 2022 repeal under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, instead choosing to “assume without conceding” that the 2013 Act was repealed to uphold the conviction [cite: 8].

3. Defiance of Legislative Command: Ifedi highlighted that the TPPA 2022 contained an explicit command to migrate pending proceedings from the 2013 Act to the new Act, a directive the trial judge “openly defied” by failing to amend the charge or re-arraign the defendant [cite: 11].

Citing Supreme Court precedents, Ifedi asserted that a conviction built upon a legal void or a repealed statute is an “absolute nullity” [cite: 10]. He concluded that the judiciary’s repeated procedural evasions demonstrate that the verdict was predetermined before the trial commenced [cite: 12].

# # #