The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has accused the Federal Government of failing to file its response to the appeal against the conviction of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, while also faulting the Court of Appeal for not listing the case for hearing.
IPOB made the allegations in a statement issued on Tuesday by its spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful.
Powerful claimed that the time allowed for the Federal Government to file its response had expired, alleging that no brief had been filed in the appeal.
ALSO READ: Police arrest four armed robbers, recover 25 stolen phones in Lagos
He said, “The time allowed for them to file their response has expired. No brief. No defence. And the Court of Appeal has refused to list the case.”
IPOB alleged that Kanu was convicted under a repealed law, arguing that the trial ought to have proceeded under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which it described as the extant legislation governing terrorism-related offences.
The group also criticised Justice James Omotosho, who presided over Kanu’s trial, accusing him of failing to apply the provisions of the 2022 Act to the case.
According to Powerful, a savings or transitional provision could preserve an existing proceeding but could not revive a repealed criminal statute for the purpose of securing a conviction.
“A savings clause or transitional clause can keep a trial alive. It cannot resurrect a dead penal statute so a judge can drag a conviction out of the graveyard,” he said.
IPOB further alleged that the failure of the Federal Government to file a response strengthened its argument that the conviction could not withstand legal scrutiny.
It also accused the Court of Appeal of deliberately failing to list the appeal, describing the development as a denial of Kanu’s opportunity to challenge his conviction.
The group compared the current situation with events following the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 decision discharging Kanu, saying a panel was constituted within 14 days to stay the effect of the judgment.
“Fourteen days to keep him in chains. Endless silence now that he asks for a hearing,” Powerful said.
He questioned why the appellate court could act swiftly in 2022 but had allegedly failed to list Kanu’s appeal against his conviction.
“Why did the Court of Appeal move within 14 days to keep Kanu in custody, but now refuses to list his appeal against a conviction under a dead law?” he asked.
Powerful also accused the Nigerian judicial system of shielding an allegedly unlawful conviction and called on the international community to pay closer attention to Kanu’s case.
He urged the relevant authorities to explain why the appeal had not been listed, arguing that a court should not allow procedural delays to prevent a convicted person from challenging the legality of his conviction.
IPOB maintained that Kanu committed no offence under the law applicable to his trial and called for the appeal to be listed and heard.
The allegations by IPOB are claims by the group and had not, in the statement provided, been independently established by the court or the Federal Government.