Lawyer explains why Nnamdi Kanu s conviction is dead on arrival at Court of Appeal
- ✦It cannot write a replacement judgment, invent a charge that was never filed, or deny Mazi Nnamdi Kanu his constitutional right to know the case he had to meet."Any attempt to uphold this conviction requires an appellate court to either pretend the judge did not say what he explicitly wrote on the record, or rewrite Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution.
- Amid delay in the hearing of the appeal filed by IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to challenge his conviction, a lawyer has declared that the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho is already dead on arrival at the appellate court.The lawyer, Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, alleged that a review of the judgment shows that the trial judge committed a fundamental perversion of basic constitutional justice in convicting the agitator.Chidera further alleged that the judge "abandoned the official charge sheet, fabricated a brand-new theory of criminal liability after the defence had closed, imported an uncharged statutory offence (Section 3 of the TPAA 2013) inside his chambers, and sent Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to prison for accusations he was never called upon to answer".According to him, under Nigerian constitutional law, the judge's action is not a minor slip that an appellate court can patch up with talk of substantial justice."This judgment changes the fundamental basis of criminal responsibility.
- It would have to explain how the judgment can stand when the judge's own core reasoning moved entirely outside the charge sheet."The appellate court must confront the judgment as delivered.
- It cannot write a replacement judgment, invent a charge that was never filed, or deny Mazi Nnamdi Kanu his constitutional right to know the case he had to meet."Any attempt to uphold this conviction requires an appellate court to either pretend the judge did not say what he explicitly wrote on the record, or rewrite Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution.
Amid delay in the hearing of the appeal filed by IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to challenge his conviction, a lawyer has declared that the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho is already dead on arrival at the appellate court.The lawyer, Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu...
Frequently Asked Questions About This Story
What is the latest development regarding Federal Capital Territory?
Amid delay in the hearing of the appeal filed by IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to challenge his conviction, a lawyer has declared that the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho is already dead on arrival at the appellate court.The lawyer, Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, alleged that a review of the judgment shows that the trial judge committed a fundamental perversion of basic constitutional justice in convicting the agitator.Chidera further alleged that the judge "abandoned the official charge sheet, fabricated a brand-new theory of criminal liability after the defence had closed, imported an uncharged statutory offence (Section 3 of the TPAA 2013) inside his chambers, and sent Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to prison for accusations he was never called upon to answer".According to him, under Nigerian constitutional law, the judge's action is not a minor slip that an appellate court can patch up with talk of substantial justice."This judgment changes the fundamental basis of criminal responsibility.
Who are the key organizations or public figures mentioned?
The primary parties identified in this coverage include Federal Capital Territory.
What are the broader implications of this development?
It cannot write a replacement judgment, invent a charge that was never filed, or deny Mazi Nnamdi Kanu his constitutional right to know the case he had to meet."Any attempt to uphold this conviction requires an appellate court to either pretend the judge did not say what he explicitly wrote on the record, or rewrite Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution.
