Lawyer Alleges Kanu Convicted On New Charges, Denied Fair Hearing

A lawyer and member of the Kanu Global Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has alleged that the conviction of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) chief, Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, concerned accusations and authorized provisions that weren’t included within the fees towards him.

In the sixth instalment of his collection analyzing the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, Ifedi argued that the court docket’s remedy of Counts One and Six raised questions on Kanu’s constitutional proper to a good listening to.

According to Ifedi, Count One in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, accused Kanu of constructing a broadcast “in furtherance of an act of terrorism” below Section 1(2)(b) of the related legislation.

However, he cited web page 96 of the judgment, the place Justice Omotosho reportedly described Kanu’s conduct as a “preparatory act of terrorism.”

Ifedi argued that the distinction between the cost and the court docket’s description raised questions concerning the foundation of the conviction.

“The government charged him with helping a crime. The judge convicted him of doing the main crime himself,” he mentioned.

The lawyer maintained that an accused individual have to be knowledgeable of the particular allegations towards him earlier than trial to allow him to arrange an sufficient defence.

He additionally questioned the remedy of Count Six, which he mentioned cited Section 1(2)(f) however didn’t expressly embody Section 3 of the legislation.

According to Ifedi, Justice Omotosho referred to Section 3 within the judgment and its prescribed punishment of life imprisonment in reference to allegations regarding threats towards international embassies.

“Section 3 was never written on the charge paper,” he mentioned, arguing that the defence ought to have had a possibility to answer the authorized provision if it fashioned a part of the premise for the conviction.

Ifedi additional cited Section 36(6)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution, which ensures an accused individual the correct to learn promptly and intimately of the character of the offence towards him.

“A new crime cannot appear for the first time on judgment day. The charge must come before the trial starts,” he mentioned.

He argued that introducing a brand new accusation or a materially totally different foundation for conviction in a remaining judgment might undermine an accused individual’s constitutional proper to a good listening to.

“A judge cannot fix a missing charge by inventing it inside his final judgment,” Ifedi mentioned.

The lawyer known as for scrutiny of the connection between the costs filed towards Kanu and the authorized reasoning adopted within the judgment.

He maintained that the court docket’s remedy of the 2 counts ought to be examined towards the unique cost sheet, the related passages of the judgment and the trial document.

Ifedi concluded by difficult these analyzing the case to check the costs with the court docket’s findings.

“Show us the pleaded charge that authorised the conviction that was delivered,” he mentioned.

The allegations symbolize Ifedi’s authorized evaluation of the judgment. Determining their validity requires examination of the whole cost sheet, the judgment, the trial document and relevant judicial authorities.