NNAMDI KANU: FAMILY REJECTS COURT VERDICT, POINTS LEGAL IRREGULARITIES
Read Time:1 Minute, 44 Second
HOTJIST NEWS
High Court in Abuja. In a statement released on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, they conveyed their position “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity.”
The family highlighted that they had presented multiple legal arguments during the court proceedings, referencing Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, relevant Supreme Court decisions concerning repealed laws, and prior judicial directives related to earlier charges.
They underscored the constitutional principle that no individual should be convicted unless the offense is clearly defined in a written law that was in force at the time of the alleged crime. The family also pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings that uphold this safeguard.
Additionally, the family expressed concern about the legal reasoning used in the judgment, particularly regarding the interpretation and application of transition or savings clauses in relation to the case. They questioned how these clauses were applied and their implications for the legal process.
The statement also addressed the court’s reliance on a transition or savings clause, noting that it may not apply because, in the family’s view, “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s matter was not pending.”
They added, “The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges,” and explained that the subsequent charges before Justice Omotosho initiated “a new case, commencing de novo.”
The family highlighted the importance of constitutional protections, saying, “A case that was terminated cannot be ‘saved’ by a transition clause.”
They also raised concerns about fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution, noting that “the right to be tried only under laws in force, to be informed of the exact charges, and not to be convicted under repealed or non-existent laws cannot be overridden.”
Regarding the hierarchy of legal authority, the statement added, “No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court.”
The statement concluded with a call for adherence to the Constitution and established legal processes, noting, “All proceedings should align with existing laws and procedures.”
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0