IPOB Condemns Court Ruling On Nnamdi Kanu, Questions Justice Omotosho’s Impartiality
IPOB Condemns Court Ruling On Nnamdi Kanu, Questions Justice Omotosho’s Impartiality
IPOB argued that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, not the accused, and that Justice Omotosho’s remark exposes the reality of Abuja courts prioritising government interests over justice.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has strongly condemned the ruling of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which declared that its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has a case to answer in the terrorism charges filed against him by the federal government.
The Biafran group in a statement issued on Saturday by Comrade Emma Powerful, Media and Publicity Secretary, questioned the judge’s impartiality, asking, “Explain certain things like what? Does the judge not know that Section 36(11) of the Nigerian Constitution forbids compelling any defendant to testify against himself?”
IPOB argued that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, not the accused, and that Justice Omotosho’s remark exposes the reality of Abuja courts prioritising government interests over justice.
“By demanding that our Leader ‘explain,’ Justice Omotosho is not applying the law; he is aiding persecution,” the statement read.
The group emphasised that IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stand on the side of truth and international law, and called on the Nigerian judiciary to stop the charade of shifting the burden onto an innocent man whose only “crime” is demanding self-determination for his people.
The statemnet partly read: “The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) strongly condemns the ruling of Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who declared yesterday that “the defendant will need to explain certain things” in the ongoing trial of our Leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
“We ask Justice Omotosho directly: Explain certain things like what? Does the judge not know that Section 36(11) of the Nigerian Constitution forbids compelling any defendant to testify against himself?
“Does the judge not understand that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, not on the accused?
“Is Justice Omotosho suggesting that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should fill the gaps in a case built on contradictory witnesses, absence of investigation reports, and reliance on a repealed law?
“This remark exposes the reality of Abuja courts: their first duty is not to justice, but to the government. By demanding that our Leader “explain,” Justice Omotosho is not applying the law; he is aiding persecution.
“We remind the world that IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stand on the side of truth and international law. The Nigerian judiciary must stop this charade of shifting the burden onto an innocent man whose only “crime” is demanding self-determination for his people.”
The Federal High Court in Abuja had on Friday dismissed Kanu’s no-case submission, ordering him to open his defence in the terrorism charges filed against him.
The trial judge, Justice Omotosho held that a prima facie case has been established against Kanu, warranting explanations from him. The court also directed the Nigeria Medical Association (NMA) to set up a team of medical experts to evaluate Kanu’s health.
IPOB’s statement highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding Kanu’s trial, with the group maintaining that the prosecution’s case is built on contradictory witnesses, absence of investigation reports, and reliance on a repealed law.
