Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, the wife of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has condemned the life imprisonment sentence handed down by Justice James Omotosho at the Federal High Court in Abuja, calling it illegal, biased, and a miscarriage of justice.
Uchechi, in a statement posted on social media, accused the judge of ignoring constitutional requirements, inventing evidence, and deliberately blocking her husband’s right to a fair hearing.
Kanu was sentenced to life imprisonment on terrorism charges for declaring a “sit‑at‑home” order in the South-East, which the court ruled was enforced through threats and violence.
The court also gave him concurrent sentences of 20 years and five years on other counts. Justice Omotosho cited international concerns over capital punishment in deciding against the death penalty.
The trial has attracted national and international attention, with critics alleging political interference. The court linked Kanu’s sit-at-home order to the killing of former presidential aide Ahmed Gulak and accused him of inciting violence through broadcasts.
Justice Omotosho described Kanu as “arrogant, cocky, and full of himself,” adding that his rhetoric posed a serious threat to public safety.
Uchechi criticised the trial for alleged multiple procedural breaches, saying, “The charges brought against Kanu were based on a law that no longer exists (the old Terrorism Act of 2013). The new 2022 Act replaced it.
“The judge knew the old law was dead; refused to acknowledge the repeal. Forced Kanu to plead under the dead law anyway. This is like charging someone under a law that has been thrown in the dustbin. Illegal. Void.”
She has also accused the judge of inventing evidence, stating: “Nigeria’s Constitution says: You cannot be punished for an offence that is not written down in a valid law. But the judge used allegations not in the charge, used ‘facts’ not presented in court, used accusations that no witness ever mentioned.
“For example, he claimed Kanu planned to bomb the British and US embassies during EndSARS. This is pure fiction. Nobody in court ever said this. It existed only in the judge’s mind. A judge is not allowed to invent evidence.”
She further condemned the court for misusing the “savings clause,” saying: “A repealed law remains repealed. You cannot continue a case under a law that is no longer valid. The judge put the Act above the Constitution. No court is allowed to do that.”
She also criticised the court for ignoring international law requirements, adding, “Since the government claimed Kanu committed crimes in Kenya, the law requires the court to first check: ‘Is this thing a crime in Kenya?’ ‘Did Kenya provide evidence?’
“The answer is: No evidence from Kenya. No Kenyan police report. No Kenyan witness. Nothing. The judge ran away from this issue completely. This means the court had no power to try Kanu on those allegations.”
Concluding her critique, she said: “The judge didn’t follow the law. He didn’t follow the Constitution. He didn’t follow due process. He refused to rule on important issues. He used a dead law. He invented evidence. He blocked the defendant’s right to speak. He delivered a judgment that cannot stand. Therefore: The judgment is worthless. It is illegal. It will not survive appeal. It exposes the judge to disciplinary action.”
The sentence has provoked reactions across Nigeria and internationally, with supporters of Kanu warning of heightened tensions in the South-East.
Human rights groups and legal analysts have expressed concern over the fairness of the trial, noting that it could set a precedent for handling high-profile political and separatist cases in the country.
About the Author
