The family of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has formally rejected the recent judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing it as a miscarriage of justice and riddled with legal irregularities.
In a statement issued on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, the family expressed “heavy hearts but absolute clarity” in their opposition to the ruling. They argued that the court failed to uphold constitutional safeguards and ignored binding Supreme Court precedents.
According to the family, several legal points raised during proceedings were disregarded, including Section 36 (12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which stipulates that no person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time. They emphasized that many of the charges against Kanu were based on repealed or non-existent laws, a position they say has been affirmed by previous Supreme Court decisions.
The statement further described the judgment as a “judicial ambush” and a denial of fair hearing. Emmanuel Kanu noted that directives from higher courts regarding earlier charges were ignored, and accused the presiding judge of introducing new legal theories that undermined the integrity of the trial.
“The Constitution is not a suggestion; it is the supreme law,” the family declared, insisting that convicting Kanu under repealed statutes amounts to a violation of Nigeria’s democratic principles. They called on the judiciary to correct what they described as a grave injustice and reaffirm the rule of law.
The family vowed to continue challenging the judgment through all available legal channels, while urging the public and international community to recognize what they see as a breach of fundamental rights.
This rejection underscores ongoing tensions surrounding Kanu’s detention and trial, which have drawn widespread attention both within Nigeria and abroad. The case remains a focal point in debates over constitutional interpretation, judicial independence, and the protection of civil liberties.