Cross-Appeal Raises Questions Over Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction —IPOB

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has said the federal government’s cross-appeal in the case involving its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, raises serious questions about the legal foundation of his conviction and the jurisdiction of the trial court.

In a statement issued on Saturday by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful, the group said the appeal process extends beyond Kanu’s case and touches on broader concerns about the credibility of Nigeria’s judicial system.

“The global family of the Indigenous People of Biafra… wishes to draw the attention of all reasonable Nigerians, the international community, members of the diplomatic corps, legal practitioners, human-rights organizations, and all defenders of constitutional government to a reality that can no longer be hidden,” the statement said.

IPOB claimed that a recent cross-appeal filed by the federal government allegedly acknowledged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in imposing a life sentence instead of a death penalty, saying this has significantly altered the legal arguments in the case.

“The implication is simple. Jurisdiction is not divisible. Jurisdiction is not a buffet. Jurisdiction is a continuum,” the group stated.

According to IPOB, if the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the sentencing stage, it could affect the validity of the entire conviction.

“The conviction and sentence are juridically inseparable. One cannot survive without the other,” it added.

The group argued that the Court of Appeal may now have to address what it described as contradictions in the federal government’s legal position.

“Any attempt by the Court of Appeal to affirm the conviction while simultaneously accepting the federal government’s admission regarding jurisdiction would require the creation of an entirely new species of criminal jurisprudence unknown to Nigeria,” IPOB said.

It also listed what it described as procedural and legal irregularities in the trial, including reliance on repealed laws, denial of fair hearing, failure to disclose applicable statutes, and withholding of evidence.

“It would have to explain how a conviction can stand when the trial judge himself acknowledged that without a written law there can be no conviction,” the group said.

IPOB further warned that the outcome of the appeal could have wider implications for Nigeria’s criminal justice system, beyond Kanu’s case.

“The Court of Appeal is no longer deciding merely whether Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should be convicted. It is deciding whether long-established principles of Nigerian criminal law still mean what they say,” it added.