11/27/2025
Caricatures, Ridicules, Mockeries, Travesties and Misrepresentations of Justice in Nigeria.
E.C. Mgbemene (A Voice for the innocent and oppressed).
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is objectively demanding for freedom of everyone in Nigeria through the restoration of Biafran independence through self-determination as enshrined/established in the United Nations Charter of the right to self-determination in Article 1, paragraph 2 (Chapter I: "Purposes and Principles"). It also resonates with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, also known as the Banjul Charter. The later is an international human rights instrument adopted in 1981 that aims to promote and protect human rights in Africa. These international Charters/Laws recognize individuals’ civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights alongside collective rights, such as self-determination and the right to development. These Charters/Laws have been ratified by Nigeria, hence part of the Nigerian laws.
These are consistent with the aims of our Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Nigeria kidnapped Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya back to Nigeria through their ferocious act of “extraordinary rendition” (state sponsored kidnapping of a person) which is a worse international crime beyond terrorism. The locations of his alleged broadcasts abroad were not investigated or determined which also voids the jurisdiction of a Nigerian court to put him to a trial. He was discharged and acquitted by the Appeal Court voiding all previous charges against him. At that point the charges against him became null and void. However the Supreme Court overturned the ruling instructing the prosecution to amend the charges to be consistent with the current legislation of Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. The instruction also included the needed corrections and replacement of count 7 involving the Custom act/law. All these were ferociously ignored by the unjust judge and ‘persecutors’.
Again, a defendant has a constitutional right to be clarified on the charges against him. These charges are usually read out by the judge to the defendant to plead guilty or not guilty. The judge showed to be biased by this action. Disallowing the defendant's final address was also a legal ambush by the unjust judge. These and many more add up to a miscarriage of justice by the unjust trial judge in this reference.
Again the referenced saving clauses in the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 contradict or conflict with the constitution. Hence, the supremacy of the constitution voids the saving clauses. The constitution upholds that no one shall be tried under a repealed law. The laws used against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's case were repealed in 2022. How can they still implement it when it's dead by the prescriptions of the constitution?
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu vehemently argued, “My Lord, I have checked my file and the laws cited. I cannot find any extant written law in force defining the offences for which I’m charged. Section 36(12) of the Constitution requires that every criminal charge must be founded on a living written law. I invite the prosecution to state which law they rely on. If they can’t, I decline to enter any defense.”
Recall that the charges were based on the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, amended in 2013. But that law was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. The implication is that the old law no longer exists. Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) says: “A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law”. This means that if the written law is dead, the charge dies with it. No living law, no valid prosecution. Hence, according to Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, repealing a law doesn’t stop ongoing cases unless the new law says so. Yes or no is a sentimental opinion. The supremacy of the constitution stands out and leads amidst contradictions or conflicting interests. Hence, the judgment of the trial judge is void.
