Charge sheet didn’t determine any terrorist act dedicated by Nnamdi Kanu – Defence staff

Ifedi, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, who spoke to journalists amid the delay by the Court of Appeal in itemizing the attraction filed by Kanu to problem his conviction, mentioned the cost sheet failed to call a single terrorism act towards Kanu.

He argued that the trial failed an elementary rule of felony pleading by not figuring out the first crime allegedly dedicated by the defendant.

“We issue a direct, precise challenge to Justice Omotosho, the prosecution team, and every legal practitioner in Nigeria: point to a single count on the charge sheet that identifies the distinct, primary act of terrorism Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s broadcasts allegedly furthered. Not the broadcast itself. Not a political statement. Not a threat. Name the primary terrorist act. Show us the count. Name the primary terrorist act. Show us the count,” Ifedi mentioned.

In rely 8, the Nigerian authorities accused Kanu of creating a broadcast in furtherance of an act of terrorism, directing members of IPOB to fabricate bombs.

However, faulting the trial and eventual conviction, Ifedi famous that the authorized query is just not whether or not a contemplated terrorist act was accomplished, neither is it whether or not the prosecution launched proof at trial that an act occurred.

The lawyer said, “The question is purely one of pleading: what distinct terrorist act did the prosecution allege these broadcasts furthered, and where did it identify that act in the counts?”

“The prosecution cannot answer this challenge by pointing back to the broadcast itself and asserting that the broadcast was the act of terrorism. That merely repeats the conduct alleged against the defendant; it does not identify the separate act to which the allegation of “furtherance” relates.

“A broadcast is the alleged means. “In furtherance” is the alleged relationship. Where is the distinct terrorist act that completes the allegation?”

Ifedi faulted the court for proceeding with the trial, stressing that a charge sheet must give explicit, written notice of every essential ingredient of the offence charged.

“A decide can’t act as a prosecutor. If Justice Omotosho failed to note that the cost sheet contained no main terrorist act, he demonstrated a basic deficiency in felony process. If he did discover and convicted anyway, he tried to rewrite an unparticularised cost sheet from the bench to save lots of a useless prosecution.

“A trial judge is an impartial adjudicator. He possesses zero jurisdiction to reconstruct an unpleaded theory of criminal liability in his judgment to supply particulars omitted by the prosecution,” he said.

Ifedi insisted that the trial didn’t adjust to Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution which stipulated that each individual charged with a felony offence is entitled to learn promptly, intimately, of the character and reason for the accusation.

According to him, failing to determine the first terrorist act allegedly furthered deprives the defendant of the factual particulars crucial to arrange a defence towards the particular act he’s alleged to have superior.

According to Ifedi, Kanu’s defence explicitly raised objections difficult the competence of the cost sheet for failing to plead the important statutory substances of the offences charged however the decide reserved these objections for closing judgment after which failed to find out them.

He faulted the decide’s motion, noting that it’s settled regulation {that a} court docket’s authority to adjudicate is conditioned upon the cost sheet satisfying the elemental situations of authorized competence.

Ifedi argued that the conviction can’t survive the attraction whereas describing Kanu’s prosecution as a trial that ended earlier than it began.

He mentioned, “This is the crucible of the entire trial: a conviction followed on a terrorism charge sheet that did not state any overt terrorist act.

“Under Nigerian felony jurisprudence, a court docket can’t convict a citizen when the indictment fails to plead the first act required by the statutory framework.

“Speech is not a self-subsisting terrorist act under Section 1(2)(b). Alleging that a broadcast was made “in furtherance of an act of terrorism” without identifying the primary terrorist act yields a hollow legal conclusion.

“Under Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution, a trial court docket lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to convict on a cost sheet that fails to reveal the factual substances of an offence.”