The sentencing of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment has been described as a judicial error and an assault on constitutional democracy by the South East Revival Group (SERG).
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday sentenced the IPOB leader after founding him guilty of the seven-count charges against him.
Reacting to the judgement in a statement signed by its National Director of Publicity, Mr Nnaemeka Aleke, SERG claimed that the judgment represented a mockery of Nigerian jurisprudence.
It accused the court of ignoring fundamental legal standards, sidestepping unresolved jurisdictional challenges, and proceeding with a haste that raised serious doubts about judicial neutrality.
SERG expressed deep shock that the court proceeded to convict Mr Kanu on charges framed under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, even though that law has been replaced with the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
The group insisted that Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution clearly forbids convicting any citizen on the basis of an offence not defined by an existing written law, noting that using a repealed statute to prosecute and convict anyone renders the entire trial void from the outset.
According to the organisation, it is both unconscionable and legally absurd to convict a person—regardless of the allegations—under a statute that no longer exists, arguing that the court’s decision placed convenience above constitutionality and speed above justice.
It stressed that Justice Omotosho engaged in what it called judicial haste and judicial avoidance by rushing to deliver judgment even when he had been repeatedly informed that several motions, appeals, and jurisdictional challenges were still pending before the Court of Appeal.
The group described the judge’s insistence on proceeding despite these unresolved matters as judicial aggression against due process, lamenting that the court ignored key legal concerns raised by Mr Kanu, including the illegality of the charges, the prosecution’s failure to respond to defence applications, and the existence of pending appellate matters on issues such as extraordinary rendition, constitutionality, and the validity of the charge sheet.
SERG argued that no court has the authority to proceed with a matter when its jurisdiction is in doubt, especially in criminal trials where liberty is at stake.
The organisation further described the proceedings as a blatant violation of Section 36 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing and adequate opportunity for a defendant to prepare a defence. It faulted the judge’s assertion that Mr Kanu refused to enter his defence, calling it a gross misrepresentation designed to shift blame.
It explained that Mr Kanu only insisted that the court resolve the legality of the charges before he could proceed, noting that this position aligns with established principles of criminal procedure in Nigeria. According to the group, fair hearing is not a discretionary privilege granted by the court but a constitutional right that must be protected at all times.
SERG maintained that the judgment is fundamentally defective because it is based on a repealed law, ignores pending appeals and unresolved motions, violates constitutional fair hearing requirements, fails to address core jurisdictional questions, and disregards binding appellate precedents.
The organisation said such a “judgment of convenience” has the potential to erode public confidence in the judiciary and escalate national tensions, especially within the already fragile South East region.
Consequently, SERG called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to urgently review the conduct of Justice Omotosho, describing the issues raised by the judgment as too weighty to be overlooked.
It also urged the Court of Appeal to promptly intervene and overturn the ruling in order to restore constitutional order and reaffirm the principle that no Nigerian can be prosecuted or convicted under an inoperative law.
Concluding its statement, SERG declared that, “This judgment is not just flawed; it offends the law, logic, and the conscience of the nation. It must not stand.”