Supreme Court’s December judgment not unanimous decision of judges – IPOB

The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, on Thursday said the December 15th judgment of the Supreme Court regarding its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, was not a unanimous decision of the judges.

Emma Powerful, the spokesman of IPOB, said the delay in releasing the Certified True Copy, CTC, of the judgment revealed the discovery.

The apex court dismissed the Appeal Court’s judgment that dismissed and acquitted Kanu of terrorism charges.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered Kanu’s case transferred back to the Federal High Court for continuation of trial.

However, a statement by Powerful reads: “The global family and movement of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) ably led by the great and indefatigable leader Nnamdi Kanu would like to take the unusual step of publicly commending the three brave justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that sat on the panel that considered the case of our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu for their refusal to sign the written judgement.

“The judgement read on 15 December 2023 was not a unanimous decision as the world was led to believe. It has subsequently emerged, following the unlawful delay in the release of the CTC, that three justices are in disagreement with the tone and wording of the verdict so declared and have declined to append their signatures to the written judgement.

“In effect, the judgement as read on the 15th of December 2023 is a minority judgement and therefore illegal. A Supreme Court panel comprising of five justices can not allow the issues under contention to be determined by only two justices.

“The courageous decision of these dissenting justices will go along way in repairing the collosal damage done to the image of the Judiciary, when it held that present and future Nigerian Governments can continue to violate the sanctity of the territorial integrity of an independent sovereign nation, kidnap, torture and extraordinarily rendition political activists, contrary to local Nigeria laws, international treaties, conventions and covenants which Nigeria is signatory to.

“According to a knowledgeable and highly dependable source within the Federal Ministry of Justice, the three resenting justices, despite enormous pressures from Aso Rock and leadership of Supreme Court, said they would not wish or want their names associated with a flawed judgement that purports to announce to the whole world that Nigeria’s Supreme Court is a supporter of executive lawlessness, inpunity and international banditry.

“Their concern for the sanctity of the rule of law and rules based international order precludes them from exposing themselves, and the Supreme Court of Nigeria to international ridicule and possible sanctions, because no court of law anywhere in the world as allowed its government to put on trial a kidnap victim extraordinarily renditioned from a foreign country since 1973, over half a century ago. For a Supreme Court to ask her government not to obey international law and treaties is a dangerous precedent which does not bod well for the advancement of natural justice and quality adjudication in Nigeria.

“One of the justices went as far as to say that he does not wish to be tagged a terrorist because there is a law in Nigeria that criminalises disobedience to validly signed treaties. Section 2, subsections (3)(f) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 is quite clear that disobedience or refusal to obey any international treaty or resolution to which Nigeria is a party, is an act of terrorism.

“This law was written in simple readable and understandable English. Any justice or judge that seeks to encourage the Nigeria government to ignore her own laws and treaties, as the judgement read on the 15th of December 2023 purport to imply, is a terrorist. That is the position of a key provision of the law. This is the simple reason why we have the unlawful delay in the release of the CTC by powers that be at the Supreme Court.”