22/11/2025
โI do not ask for charity; I ask for the Constitution to be honoured โ exactly as Your Lordship James Omotosho swore to observe when taking your judicial oath under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitutionโ. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stated the facts plainly so there was no misunderstanding and no room for later mischaracterisation. On November 2025 before the neo-colonialists handed James Omotosho the written judgement that convicted him.
First, Counts 1โ6 of the charge are grounded in the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013. That statute has been repealed. It is no longer part of Nigeriaโs written criminal law. A statute which has been repealed cannot define an offence for purposes of trial or conviction.
Second, Count 7 is even more anomalous. It purports to be founded on a โCriminal Code Act Cap C45.โ There is no such statute. That Act does not exist in our statute book. It is a legal fiction. The Supreme Court itself recognised that Count 7, in its present form, is defective and directed that it be corrected.
Third, notwithstanding the Supreme Courtโs direction to correct Count 7, neither the prosecution nor this Court has complied. The Supreme Courtโs order is binding and final. A lower court cannot ignore it. A party cannot, by ignoring an apex court direction, invent jurisdiction where none exists.
What follows from these uncontroverted facts is simple, immediate, and fatal to the prosecutionโs case.
Counts 1โ6 rest on a repealed statute. Section 36(12) of the Constitution requires that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined in a written law in force. The 2013 Act is not in force. A conviction under it would be unconstitutional and void.
Count 7 rests on a non-existent statute and was expressly identified by the Supreme Court as defective. The Court cannot sustain an offence that has no statutory existence. To proceed on Count 7 as currently framed is to proceed on a nullity.
The Supreme Court ordered correction of Count 7. That order is binding. To ignore it is to place this Court in direct disobedience of the apex court, and to attempt to proceed on a count the Supreme Court has declared defective is an attack on the rule of law.
Even procedurally, judicial notice of repeal was requested repeatedly and ignored. Section 122 of the Evidence Act requires courts to take judicial notice of laws and repeals. My repeated requests that this Court take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Act were not honoured. A judge who refuses to take judicial notice of a public statute is refusing a basic judicial duty.
If the prosecution now attempts โ by affidavit, written address or any post-trial fabrication โ to re-cast the situs or to โread inโ a different statute so as to save these counts, that manoeuvre will be fraud on the Court. The charge cannot be rewritten by argument. A change to the situs or to the statutory basis of the offence requires a fresh, properly framed charge and the exercise of the accusedโs right to be informed and to prepare his defence. Any attempt to circumvent that by dressing argument as amendment is impermissible and void.
This Court lacks jurisdiction in multiple independent ways:
The enabling statute for Counts 1โ6 is repealed โ no lawful offence exists under those counts.
Count 7 alleges an offence under a non-existent Act โ no statutory offence exists.
The Supreme Courtโs instruction to correct Count 7 was ignored โ there is a disobedience of the highest judicial authority.
The Court refused to take judicial notice of repeal despite repeated reminders โ the Court failed to perform its judicial duty.
The consequece is inescapable: This Court has no lawful basis to convict me on any count. To attempt to convict me will be to issue a judgment that is constitutionally void ab initio. The only lawful outcome consistent with the Constitution, the Evidence Act, and the Supreme Courtโs orders is the immediate termination of these proceedings and my discharge.
