SERG Slams Kanu Terrorism Verdict, Says Ruling ‘Must Not Stand’

The South East Revival Group (SERG) has criticised the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja that convicted the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, on terrorism-related charges, describing the ruling as a threat to constitutional order.

In a statement issued on Thursday and signed by its National Director of Publicity, Nnaemeka Aleke, the organisation labelled the verdict by Justice James Omotosho as “a judicial aberration” and “a dangerous subversion of constitutional democracy.” 

The statement further argued that the conviction amounted to an assault on fair hearing and due process.

SERG’s most forceful objection centred on the court’s reliance on the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, which the group stated had been replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. 

Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, it maintained that no citizen can be tried or convicted for an offence not defined by an existing law.

“It is both unconscionable and legally absurd to convict anyone under a law that no longer exists,” the group said, adding that the ruling appeared to prioritise “speed over justice” and “convenience over constitutionality.”

SERG also faulted the court for proceeding with the trial despite what it described as unresolved motions, appeals and jurisdictional objections pending before the Court of Appeal. 

It said pushing ahead in such circumstances amounted to “judicial aggression” and raised questions about neutrality and adherence to procedure.

“The court has no authority to proceed when its jurisdiction is in doubt, especially in a criminal trial involving the liberty of a citizen,” the statement added.

It accused the judge of overlooking crucial issues relating to extraordinary rendition, the legality of the charge sheet and constitutional matters awaiting appellate review.

Responding to claims that Kanu refused to enter a defence, the group said the IPOB leader merely insisted that the court first determine the legality of the charges. 

It argued that fair hearing was a constitutional guarantee that must be fully satisfied before any trial could continue.

“The claim that Kanu refused to defend himself is a deliberate distortion. He simply demanded that the court first determine whether the charges were lawful,” the group said.

Warning that the ruling could inflame tensions in the Southeast and further erode confidence in the judiciary, SERG described the judgment as “fundamentally defective” and lacking a valid legal foundation. 

It argued that the decision violated constitutional safeguards and ignored existing appellate precedents.

“This judgment of convenience threatens national stability. It sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law,” SERG said.

The group urged the National Judicial Council to examine Justice Omotosho’s conduct and called on the Court of Appeal to swiftly overturn the conviction to “restore constitutional order.” 

Aleke concluded that the judgment “offends the law, logic, and the conscience of the nation” and insisted it “must not stand.”

READ ALSO:  US Lawmakers Review Trump’s Redesignation of Nigeria as ‘Country of Particular Concern’