Nnamdi Kanu tried like someone already marked for prison - Defence team
D
Daily Post Nigeria
Reported by Williams Odunze
Tue, 3 Nov 2026, 14:15
Photo courtesy of Daily Post Nigeria · Verified via News Stand NG
Source Attribution: Daily Post Nigeria
News Stand NG operates under ethical news aggregation guidelines. Source: Daily Post Nigeria. To read the unabridged investigative reporting and full gallery, visit the original publication.
The development had prompted IPOB to order its members to boycott the activities of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, ahead of the 2027 elections.The defence team, which has been faulting Kanu's conviction following the delay in the appeal, accused the judge of tyranny, alleging that he overruled the Supreme Court and refused to read the law in the course of the trial.It noted that Kanu formally begged the court to move his trial from the repealed Terrorism Act, TPAA, 2013, to the new Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, TPPA, 2022, as mandated by the compulsory transition commands in sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, but the judge refused."He threw the request away with a wave of his hand, without even bothering to read what the law actually says."What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?"Why would a Federal High Court judge deliberately refuse to read the plain words of a statute? He treated Kanu like he didn't count: Omotosho acted as though Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was already marked for prison, assuming basic constitutional rights didn't apply to him," Ifedi said, speaking on behalf of the defence team.Ifedi argued that Kanu would not have been convicted if the judge had moved the trial from the old TPAA 2013 to the new TPPA 2022.Alleging that the court was afraid of what he described as the 'living law', the lawyer said, "He refused to move the case because the new TPPA 2022 contains strict evidence rules, transparent safeguards, and clear definitions.
Context & Background
✦The government's weak, stale 2015 allegations could never survive the transparent checks of the 2022 Act."If the judge had followed the law and moved the trial, the charges would have collapsed and Kanu would have walked free.
Key Figures & Named Entities
2027:The development had prompted IPOB to order its members to boycott the activities of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, ahead of the 2027 elections.The defence team, which has been faulting Kanu's conviction following the delay in the appeal, accused the judge of tyranny, alleging that he overruled the Supreme Court and refused to read the law in the course of the trial.It noted that Kanu formally begged the court to move his trial from the repealed Terrorism Act, TPAA, 2013, to the new Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, TPPA, 2022, as mandated by the compulsory transition commands in sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, but the judge refused."He threw the request away with a wave of his hand, without even bothering to read what the law actually says."What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?"Why would a Federal High Court judge deliberately refuse to read the plain words of a statute?2022:He treated Kanu like he didn't count: Omotosho acted as though Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was already marked for prison, assuming basic constitutional rights didn't apply to him," Ifedi said, speaking on behalf of the defence team.Ifedi argued that Kanu would not have been convicted if the judge had moved the trial from the old TPAA 2013 to the new TPPA 2022.Alleging that the court was afraid of what he described as the 'living law', the lawyer said, "He refused to move the case because the new TPPA 2022 contains strict evidence rules, transparent safeguards, and clear definitions.2022:The government's weak, stale 2015 allegations could never survive the transparent checks of the 2022 Act."If the judge had followed the law and moved the trial, the charges would have collapsed and Kanu would have walked free.
Outlook & Next Steps
Follow original publisher reporting for subsequent developments, official responses, and verified updates.
Key Takeaways
Verified Extract
✦The development had prompted IPOB to order its members to boycott the activities of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, ahead of the 2027 elections.The defence team, which has been faulting Kanu's conviction following the delay in the appeal, accused the judge of tyranny, alleging that he overruled the Supreme Court and refused to read the law in the course of the trial.It noted that Kanu formally begged the court to move his trial from the repealed Terrorism Act, TPAA, 2013, to the new Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, TPPA, 2022, as mandated by the compulsory transition commands in sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, but the judge refused."He threw the request away with a wave of his hand, without even bothering to read what the law actually says."What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?"Why would a Federal High Court judge deliberately refuse to read the plain words of a statute?
✦He treated Kanu like he didn't count: Omotosho acted as though Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was already marked for prison, assuming basic constitutional rights didn't apply to him," Ifedi said, speaking on behalf of the defence team.Ifedi argued that Kanu would not have been convicted if the judge had moved the trial from the old TPAA 2013 to the new TPPA 2022.Alleging that the court was afraid of what he described as the 'living law', the lawyer said, "He refused to move the case because the new TPPA 2022 contains strict evidence rules, transparent safeguards, and clear definitions.
✦The government's weak, stale 2015 allegations could never survive the transparent checks of the 2022 Act."If the judge had followed the law and moved the trial, the charges would have collapsed and Kanu would have walked free.
Key Facts:2027: The development had prompted IPOB to order its members to boycott the activities of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, ahead of the 2027 elections.The defence team, which has been faulting Kanu's conviction following the delay in the appeal, accused the judge of tyranny, alleging that he overruled the Supreme Court and refused to read the law in the course of the trial.It noted that Kanu formally begged the court to move his trial from the repealed Terrorism Act, TPAA, 2013, to the new Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, TPPA, 2022, as mandated by the compulsory transition commands in sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, but the judge refused."He threw the request away with a wave of his hand, without even bothering to read what the law actually says."What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?"Why would a Federal High Court judge deliberately refuse to read the plain words of a statute?2022: He treated Kanu like he didn't count: Omotosho acted as though Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was already marked for prison, assuming basic constitutional rights didn't apply to him," Ifedi said, speaking on behalf of the defence team.Ifedi argued that Kanu would not have been convicted if the judge had moved the trial from the old TPAA 2013 to the new TPPA 2022.Alleging that the court was afraid of what he described as the 'living law', the lawyer said, "He refused to move the case because the new TPPA 2022 contains strict evidence rules, transparent safeguards, and clear definitions.2022: The government's weak, stale 2015 allegations could never survive the transparent checks of the 2022 Act."If the judge had followed the law and moved the trial, the charges would have collapsed and Kanu would have walked free.
Editorial Excerpt
The defence team of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has alleged that the Abuja Federal High Court presided over by Justice James Omotosho treated him as someone already marked for prison.The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium made the claim through a lawyer,...
Frequently Asked Questions About This Story
What is the latest development regarding All Progressives Congress?
The development had prompted IPOB to order its members to boycott the activities of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, ahead of the 2027 elections.The defence team, which has been faulting Kanu's conviction following the delay in the appeal, accused the judge of tyranny, alleging that he overruled the Supreme Court and refused to read the law in the course of the trial.It noted that Kanu formally begged the court to move his trial from the repealed Terrorism Act, TPAA, 2013, to the new Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, TPPA, 2022, as mandated by the compulsory transition commands in sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, but the judge refused."He threw the request away with a wave of his hand, without even bothering to read what the law actually says."What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?"Why would a Federal High Court judge deliberately refuse to read the plain words of a statute?
Who are the key organizations or public figures mentioned?
The primary parties identified in this coverage include All Progressives Congress, Federal Capital Territory.
What timeline or key figures were confirmed?
The development had prompted IPOB to order its members to boycott the activities of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, ahead of the 2027 elections.The defence team, which has been faulting Kanu's conviction following the delay in the appeal, accused the judge of tyranny, alleging that he overruled the Supreme Court and refused to read the law in the course of the trial.It noted that Kanu formally begged the court to move his trial from the repealed Terrorism Act, TPAA, 2013, to the new Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, TPPA, 2022, as mandated by the compulsory transition commands in sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, but the judge refused."He threw the request away with a wave of his hand, without even bothering to read what the law actually says."What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?"Why would a Federal High Court judge deliberately refuse to read the plain words of a statute?
