A lawyer and member of the Kanu Global Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has alleged that the conviction of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, involved accusations and legal provisions that were not included in the charges against him.
In the sixth instalment of his series examining the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, Ifedi argued that the court’s treatment of Counts One and Six raised questions about Kanu’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
According to Ifedi, Count One in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, accused Kanu of making a broadcast “in furtherance of an act of terrorism” under Section 1(2)(b) of the relevant law.
However, he cited page 96 of the judgment, where Justice Omotosho reportedly described Kanu’s conduct as a “preparatory act of terrorism.”
Ifedi argued that the difference between the charge and the court’s description raised questions about the basis of the conviction.
“The government charged him with helping a crime. The judge convicted him of doing the main crime himself,” he said.
The lawyer maintained that an accused person must be informed of the specific allegations against him before trial to enable him to prepare an adequate defence.
He also questioned the treatment of Count Six, which he said cited Section 1(2)(f) but did not expressly include Section 3 of the law.
According to Ifedi, Justice Omotosho referred to Section 3 in the judgment and its prescribed punishment of life imprisonment in connection with allegations concerning threats against foreign embassies.
“Section 3 was never written on the charge paper,” he said, arguing that the defence should have had an opportunity to respond to the legal provision if it formed part of the basis for the conviction.
Ifedi further 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 against him.
“A new crime cannot appear for the first time on judgment day. The charge must come before the trial starts,” he said.
He argued that introducing a new accusation or a materially different basis for conviction in a final judgment could undermine an accused person’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
“A judge cannot fix a missing charge by inventing it inside his final judgment,” Ifedi said.
The lawyer called for scrutiny of the relationship between the charges filed against Kanu and the legal reasoning adopted in the judgment.
He maintained that the court’s treatment of the two counts should be examined against the original charge sheet, the relevant passages of the judgment and the trial record.
Ifedi concluded by challenging those examining the case to compare the charges with the court’s findings.
“Show us the pleaded charge that authorised the conviction that was delivered,” he said.
The allegations represent Ifedi’s legal assessment of the judgment. Determining their validity requires examination of the complete charge sheet, the judgment, the trial record and applicable judicial authorities.
