 |
| Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, Wife of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu |
— ABUJA, Nigeria
Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, the wife of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has criticized the recent judgment by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, questioning the logical consistency in the ruling that convicted the separatist leader on terrorism charges.
In a statement on Sunday, Mrs. Okwu-Kanu posed a direct challenge to the judge, “If the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022 is to be treated as though it does not exist, as the judgment appears to imply by relying on the repealed 2013 Act, how could the court invoke a section from the new Act to support its conclusion?”.
She argued that Justice Omotosho's reliance on section 98(3) of the TPPA 2022 inherently acknowledges the existence of the new law, creating what she described as a fundamental contradiction that undermines the entire ruling.
Mrs. Okwu-Kanu contended that no rational legal reasoning can simultaneously affirm a statute's provision while declaring the statute itself non-existent, labeling the approach as incoherent and indicative of flawed judicial logic.
She emphasized that section 98(3) cannot exist independently; its validity depends on the TPPA 2022 being operative, making it impossible for the court to cite it while proceeding under the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
Drawing an analogy, she compared the judgment's position to claiming to sit on a chair while insisting the chair does not exist, calling it an example of “judicial insanity” that defies common sense and legal principles.
Mrs. Okwu-Kanu further asserted that the law does not allow statutes to be selectively applied or disregarded to achieve a predetermined outcome, stating that the ruling's internal trap if the new Act exists, it should govern; if not, its sections cannot be invoked renders the conviction fatally flawed and the court's jurisdiction questionable.
Supporters of Kanu and legal observers have echoed similar concerns, with appeals already in preparation, arguing that the judgment collapses under this core contradiction and is unlikely to withstand higher court scrutiny.