A legal luminary, Uche Onyeagucha, has faulted the life sentence handed to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Onyeagucha, a former lawmaker who represented the people of Owerri Federal Constituency in Imo State, stated that Justice Omotosho was in a hurry to convict Nnamdi Kanu.
He described it as a sham trial, illegal, null, void, and of no effect, saying that Justice Omotosho failed to follow the provisions of Sections 267 and 349(6)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
According to Onyeagucha, these provisions require that a person charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment shall be represented by a lawyer.
In a statement he personally signed on Sunday, he said that it was the responsibility of the court, in this case led by Justice Omotosho, to have assigned Mazi Nnamdi Kanu a lawyer to represent him.
The legal luminary further cited Section 349(6)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which provides that “a defendant charged with a capital offence or an offence punishable with life imprisonment SHALL not be allowed to represent and defend himself.”
Part of the statement read: “Omotosho J. failed to follow this provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 by allowing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to represent himself, contrary to the spirit of the law, which states that he shall not be allowed to defend himself.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, under the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, did not have legal representation as envisaged by the ACJ Act 2015.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not receive a fair trial or fair hearing as a person charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment.
“The sham trial, conviction, and sentence by Omotosho J. will be set aside by the Court of Appeal, relying on the combined effects of Sections 267 and 349(6)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Omotosho J. did not follow the law in discharging his duty as a judge. The judgment will collapse on appeal.”