IPOB lists 8 reasons why Court should free Nnamdi Kanu

By Chimaobi Nwaiwu

NNEWI——— THE Indigenous People of Biafra IPOB, yesterday gave the reasons why the Federal High Court Abuja, should release its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, without further delay.

IPOB in a statement by its Spokesman / Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, titled “Eight questions that must be answered before any talk of trial: Why Nigeria has no case against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu” reminded the Federal High Court Abuja that Justice Binta Nyako, once told Nigerians state that no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence to prosecute its case.

IPOB on its part, is telling the Federal High Court Abuja that no court can substitute sentiment for law, as ruling on “No-Case Submission” of its leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu approaches.

IPOB’s statement read, “Justice Binta Nyako once told the Nigerian State that no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence.

“Today, we wish to remind His Lordship Justice James Omotosho that no court can substitute sentiment for law.

“As the ruling on the No-Case Submission of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu approaches, these are the questions every citizen, every lawyer, every judge and Justice Omotosho himself must answer before pronouncing whether there is a case to answer or not.

“If these questions are not answered affirmatively and lawfully, then the prosecution has failed, and the court has no choice but to discharge the Defendant.

IPOB is therefore asking the Federal High Court Abuja, “Can prima facie case be established in the absence of an investigation report? Adding that an investigation report is a vital foundation in establishing the elements of a charge and linking it to the accused.

Citing that case of Ikomi v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.28) 340, it said the Supreme Court held that, “Failure to conduct a proper investigation renders the entire prosecution incurably defective.”

“In this case, no investigation report linking Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to the specific allegations such as incitement, terrorism and treason, has been produced. The lack of any forensic trail or investigative analysis is fatal to the charge.”

It further asked, “Can a prima facie case be established only on the testimony of 5 DSS officers? When the testimony is uncorroborated or partisan. In Adele v. The State (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 377) 269, the Court of Appeal warned that evidence of security operatives must be approached with caution, especially where the accused is in conflict with the State.

“Moreover, in Musa v. The State (2019) LPELR-46920(CA), the court ruled that mere repetition of hearsay evidence or intelligence from anonymous sources cannot constitute proof of any element of an offence.

“In this case, all five DSS officers are compromised by their institutional bias, and none has provided firsthand knowledge of any offence. This is not evidence; it is theatre.

“Can a prima facie case be said to have been made without a collaborator named in the charge? It said it cannot adding that in charges involving conspiracy or group intent, the failure to name or arraign collaborators renders the charge speculative. See Patrick Njovens & Ors v. The State (1973) LPELR-SC.48/1973, where the Supreme Court held that criminal liability cannot be stretched into abstraction without establishing joint action or intention.

“In the present case, the prosecution alleges “leadership” of a proscribed group and makes veiled references to others, yet fails to name or bring any co-defendants. This is legally untenable.

“Can a prima facie case be established without a victim? It also said no and not where the offense presupposes harm or threat to a person or property. Citing Onagoruwa v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.303) 49, the court emphasized the necessity of establishing a victim or injured party in crimes of violence, incitement, or harm.

“Who was incited? Who was attacked? Who is the injured party? None has been presented. No complainant has testified. The absence of a named or identified victim renders the allegation empty.”

It further asked “Can prima facie be established solely on account of IPOB leadership? It said absolutely not. Mere association with an organization even one proscribed under ex parte proceedings does not ipso facto establish criminal liability. Citing Eze v. FRN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.51) 506, the court warned against criminalizing mere status or political identity.

“Furthermore, in Asari Dokubo v. FRN (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1048) 320, the Supreme Court affirmed that the government must prove that the accused did more than belong to a group; it must prove a criminal act.

“No such act has been identified in Mazi Kanu’s case. The charge is based solely on assumed guilt by association, a perversion of justice.

“Can broadcast alone establish a prima facie case? No. Mere broadcast, absent evidence of causation, or specific unlawful outcomes, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge. In Nwankwo v. The State (1985) 6 NCLR 228, the court held that freedom of expression includes criticism of the government, unless such speech can be forensically established or linked to violence.

“Moreover, the place of broadcast, and whether it falls within Nigerian jurisdiction, must be proven especially when international boundaries are involved. The prosecution has failed to identify time, place, or audience affected.

“Can negative outcome on all the above still lead to a conviction? The answer is no. If all foundational elements collapse, no conviction is possible. In Ajiboye v. The State (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.414) 408, the court declared that if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case, the trial court must discharge the accused.

“Where there is no victim, no investigator, no co-conspirator, no actus reus, no jurisdictional link, the law cannot proceed to conviction on air.

“Can ex parte proscription establish a prima facie case? Never is the answer. A proscription order granted ex parte (without hearing the accused) has no evidential weight in a criminal trial. In Chief Gani Fawehinmi v. Akilu & Anor. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797, the Supreme Court insisted that due process cannot be bypassed for expediency.

“A proscription obtained without hearing IPOB or Mazi Kanu is administrative, not judicial. It cannot substitute for proof of a criminal offence. Moreover, proscription itself is under challenge, rendering it judicially unsettled and incompetent as a basis for conviction.”

IPOB concluded that “The Nigerian Government has no case unless Justice Omotosho, wishes to join those who have desecrated Nigeria’s judiciary, he must answer these questions honestly, lawfully, and courageously.

“Any court that sidesteps these critical issues is no longer a court of justice but a tool of oppression. If the prosecution is relying on “No investigation report”
only DSS witnesses without firsthand knowledge, no identified victims,no named collaborators, no jurisdiction over the alleged broadcasts and and a dubious ex parte proscription….then there is no case to answer.

“This is not just a legal crisis. This is a moral reckoning. And to all Nigerians South, North, East, and West this is a test of how long you will allow injustice to reign under the guise of the law.”

The post IPOB lists 8 reasons why Court should free Nnamdi Kanu appeared first on Vanguard News.