A Few days after a life imprisonment was slammed on the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court Abuja, his family has formally reacted to the judgment, describing it as “an ambushment and affront to the Constitution”.

The family, subsequently, demanded immediate nullification of the judgment, arguing it was based on a repealed, dead and non-existent law”.

Kanu’s family in a statement by Prince Emmanuel, made available to newsmen on Monday morning, accused Justice Omotosho of embarking on a voyage of absurdity by convicting the IPoB leader based on a repealed law.

The family further expressed shock that the trial Justice introduced a matter that was not charged nor mentioned by any witness when he claimed that Kanu threatened to bomb American embassy.

According to the statement, a Judge cannot ambush an accused after hearing has closed.

It read in part:”Once parties conclude arguments, the judge cannot, on judgment day, introduce a new legal theory, new statutes, or new grounds of conviction. Doing so without informing the accused or giving him a chance to be heard is the very definition of denial of fair hearing.

“What Justice Omotosho did was exactly that. He invoked a transition/savings clause — a clause that nobody argued, nobody raised, and nobody addressed — and used it to overturn the Constitution itself. This is ambush jurisprudence. This is not law.”

It further read:”What happened in the courtroom of Justice James Omotosho was not justice — it was an ambush.

“After months of legal arguments, after submissions citing: Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court authorities stating plainly that a repealed law is dead, the binding decision of the Supreme Court directing correction of Count 7, Justice Omotosho ignored every one of these constitutional and judicial commands and convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on repealed and non-existent laws.

“This is unprecedented. This is unconstitutional.This is a direct violation of the right to fair hearing.”

The statement further read:” A Repealed Law Is Dead — The Supreme Court Has Said So Repeatedly. The Constitution is clear: No person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time. — Section 36(12), 1999 Constitution

“The Supreme Court has repeated the same principle in case after case:
A repealed statute is dead.
A repealed statute cannot create an offence. A repealed statute cannot sustain a conviction. No judge, regardless of personal views, can resurrect a dead law. Justice Omotosho acknowledged these authorities — then violated them.

“He did not only contradict the Constitution. He contradicted the Supreme Court. He contradicted binding precedent. He contradicted his own oath of office.

“The Transition/Savings Clause Does Not Apply — The Case Was Not Pending
Justice Omotosho attempted to evade the constitutional bar on repealed laws by invoking a savings clause. This is legally impossible.

“The savings clause applies only to matters pending at the time of repeal.
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s matter was not pending. The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges. When the Federal Government filed fresh charges before Justice Omotosho, it was a new case, commencing de novo.

“A case that was terminated cannot be “saved” by a transition clause.
The law cannot save what no longer existed. Justice Omotosho therefore, applied the savings clause to a non-existent proceeding, which is a legal impossibility.

“No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court. Yet this judgment did all three. If Justice Omotosho’s position is accepted, then:

” Is Justice Omotosho saying that:A judge can convict on a repealed law?
A judge can revive a dead law? A judge can contradict the Constitution by judicial improvisation? And worst of all —
A non-derogable right can be derogated from? Such a proposition is legally absurd and constitutionally dangerous.”

Kanus family declared that :”this Judgment cannot stand.”

“We state without fear and without apology: Justice Omotosho’s judgment is unlawful, unconstitutional, and void. It was achieved: through ambush, through reliance on laws that no longer exist, through disobedience to the Supreme Court, through denial of fair hearing, and through a fabricated legal theory never presented in open court. Nothing done under such conditions can stand in law. Nothing done in violation of a citizen’s fundamental rights can endure.”