Nnamdi Kanu Lawyer Pledges Aggressive Appeal After Life Sentence, Criticizes Conviction For Mere Spoken Words

 

Nnamdi Kanu’s legal representatives have vowed to challenge his life imprisonment sentence, describing the Federal High Court’s judgment as fundamentally flawed. Speaking to journalists shortly after Justice James Omotosho delivered the verdict, Aloy Ejimakor, acting as a consultant to Kanu’s legal team, asserted that the conviction was based on words rather than actionable conduct, raising questions about the legal precedent being established.

Ejimakor emphasized that no individual should face conviction solely for verbal statements. He questioned the rationale behind punishing a man for his broadcasts without a direct link to acts of violence, stressing that the evidence presented did not demonstrate a tangible connection between Kanu’s words and any specific criminal incident. According to the lawyer, the ruling represents a dangerous departure from principles of justice and fair trial standards.

“This is unprecedented. Today, we witnessed a man sentenced for mere pronouncements without any physical act of violence,” Ejimakor remarked. He described the verdict as overly broad, excessively punitive, and inconsistent with the evidence brought before the court. The legal consultant also argued that Kanu’s broadcast originated from an unnamed location and was not tied to any identifiable act of terrorism, rendering the conviction legally questionable.

The legal team has confirmed plans to escalate the matter to the Court of Appeal. Ejimakor stated that the appellate court, known for its rigorous review and jury-like approach to cases, would provide an opportunity to rectify what he characterized as a gross miscarriage of justice. He expressed confidence that the justices would recognize the irregularities in the lower court’s proceedings and reverse the conviction.

Should the Court of Appeal uphold the ruling, Ejimakor indicated that the legal fight would continue to the Supreme Court. He made it clear that Kanu would not remain convicted, signaling a prolonged legal battle aimed at challenging the core basis of the sentence. The lawyer’s comments underscore the determination of Kanu’s team to exhaust all judicial avenues in pursuit of justice.

Observers note that this case has sparked widespread debate about freedom of expression, legal interpretation of terrorism-related offenses, and the thresholds for criminal liability. The conviction has prompted questions about how far courts can go in holding individuals accountable for speech in the absence of direct violent acts. Legal analysts suggest that the outcome of Kanu’s appeals could have far-reaching implications for similar cases across the country.

As proceedings move to higher courts, attention remains focused on how appellate judges will interpret the evidence and whether they will uphold principles of individual rights in the context of national security concerns. The coming weeks are expected to bring detailed legal arguments, intense scrutiny, and significant public interest surrounding this high-profile case.