Nnamdi Kanu's Wife Condemns Court Proceedings Following Husbands Terrorism Conviction And Life Sentence Verdict

 

Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, spouse of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, has sharply criticized the Federal High Court following her husband’s life imprisonment sentence on Thursday. She raised concerns about the handling of the trial, particularly regarding procedural and constitutional safeguards she claims were ignored.

Speaking after the sentencing, Uchechi alleged that Justice James Omotosho relied on a pre-prepared script to deliver the judgment against her husband. She claimed the judge struggled to read portions of the very judgment he was presenting, casting doubt on the authenticity and rigor of the proceedings. According to her, the court bypassed a critical requirement of Nigerian law by failing to clearly read and cite the written statutes under which Kanu was being tried.

“The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, section 36, clearly states that no individual shall be convicted of a criminal offense unless the law defining the offense and prescribing the penalty is written,” Uchechi stated. She insisted that Kanu was forced to respond under what she described as a repealed law, a situation she described as a travesty of justice.

Uchechi also accused the court of denying her husband the opportunity to fully present his defense. She maintained that Justice Omotosho instructed Kanu to place objections within a final address, only to block that submission during the proceedings. She emphasized that such actions undermine the right of any defendant to a fair trial, asserting that Kanu’s refusal to enter a defense was a response to these procedural irregularities rather than an admission of guilt.

The Federal High Court had convicted Kanu on all seven counts of terrorism brought by the Department of State Services. In his ruling, Justice Omotosho noted that the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to support the charges and emphasized that Kanu elected not to present a defense, which left the court with no alternative but to convict.

Uchechi took to social media to highlight her grievances, questioning the legality of the sentencing process. She argued that forcing a defendant to proceed under unclear or repealed statutes constitutes a violation of the constitution, and accused the judge of circumventing the proper legal process by failing to issue written rulings on key applications throughout the trial.

The controversy surrounding the case continues to draw attention to Nigeria’s legal system, raising debates over judicial accountability, procedural transparency, and the rights of defendants facing terrorism-related charges. Uchechi’s statements reflect not only personal indignation but also broader concerns about adherence to constitutional protections in high-profile criminal trials.