A member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has questioned the legal basis of the terrorism conviction of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the charge sheet failed to identify the specific terrorist act allegedly advanced by his broadcasts.
Ifedi made the assertion while expressing concern over the delay by the Court of Appeal in listing Kanu’s appeal challenging his conviction.
According to the lawyer, the prosecution failed to clearly identify the primary terrorist act allegedly connected to the broadcasts cited in the charges against Kanu, raising questions about whether the indictment adequately disclosed the essential elements of the offences.
He maintained that an allegation that a defendant acted “in furtherance of an act of terrorism” should specify the distinct terrorist act allegedly being advanced, rather than relying solely on the defendant’s alleged statements or broadcasts.
Ifedi argued that the distinction was central to determining whether the charge sheet provided sufficient details to enable Kanu to understand the allegations against him and prepare an effective defence.
The lawyer pointed to counts 1 and 2 of the charge, which accused Kanu of making broadcasts in furtherance of terrorism against Nigeria. Counts 4 and 5 alleged that he made broadcasts inciting members of the public to hunt and kill security personnel and their families, while count 8 accused him of directing IPOB members to manufacture bombs through a broadcast.
However, Ifedi questioned whether the prosecution had adequately identified the separate terrorist acts allegedly furthered by the broadcasts in the relevant counts.
He stressed that the issue, as he presented it, was not necessarily whether a contemplated act of terrorism had been completed or whether evidence of related conduct emerged during the trial, but whether the charge sheet itself clearly stated the essential elements of the offences.
“The prosecution cannot answer this challenge by pointing back to the broadcast itself and asserting that the broadcast was the act of terrorism,” Ifedi said, maintaining that the alleged means of committing an offence should not be confused with the separate act allegedly being advanced.
He further argued that the trial court had a duty to ensure that the charges before it met the requirements of criminal procedure and that it could not supply essential particulars omitted by the prosecution.
Ifedi also cited Section 36(6)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees an accused person the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature of the offence charged.
According to him, failure to identify the specific terrorist act allegedly furthered could undermine that constitutional guarantee by leaving the defendant without sufficient factual details about the accusation he was expected to answer.
The lawyer alleged that Kanu’s defence had raised objections to the competence of the charge sheet during the proceedings, arguing that the objections were reserved for the final judgment but were not properly determined.
He maintained that a court’s jurisdiction to conduct a criminal trial depends on the charge meeting the necessary legal requirements and contended that the alleged defects should be considered in the pending appeal.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, Ifedi argued that jurisdiction is fundamental to the validity of judicial proceedings. He also relied on the constitutional right to detailed information about criminal accusations in challenging the legal foundation of Kanu’s conviction.
Describing the prosecution as fundamentally flawed, Ifedi insisted that the Court of Appeal should examine whether the charge sheet adequately disclosed the offences for which Kanu was convicted.
His intervention adds another dimension to the ongoing legal battle surrounding the IPOB leader, with the competence of the charge sheet and the constitutional requirements for criminal proceedings emerging as key issues in the defence team’s challenge.
The arguments represent the position of Kanu’s defence consortium. Their legal validity and effect on the conviction remain matters for determination by the appellate court.
