Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction: Lawyer Alleges Justice Omotosho Introduced Uncharged Offences in Judgment

• A Nigerian lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has raised fresh legal concerns over the conviction of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

A Nigerian lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has raised fresh legal concerns over the conviction of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, alleging that Justice James Omotosho introduced allegations and provisions of the law that were not contained in the original charges against him.

In Part 6 of his series titled “Omotosho’s Sixth Jurisdictional Failure,” Ifedi accused the judge of what he described as a judicial bait-and-switch, arguing that Kanu was convicted on a legal theory different from the one presented by the prosecution.

The lawyer specifically questioned the handling of Counts One and Six in the case, Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, whose judgment was delivered on November 20, 2025.

According to Ifedi, Count One of the original charge sheet accused Kanu of making a broadcast allegedly in furtherance of an act of terrorism under Section 1(2)(b) of the relevant law.

However, he claimed that Justice Omotosho, in his reasoning on Page 96 of the judgment, described Kanu’s conduct as having carried out a preparatory act of terrorism, which the lawyer argued amounted to a fundamental departure from the original accusation.

Ifedi maintained that the prosecution’s allegation of supporting or advancing an act of terrorism could not lawfully be transformed into a conviction for personally carrying out the principal act without giving the defendant an opportunity to defend himself against that specific allegation.

He also raised concerns over Count Six, alleging that although the charge sheet cited Section 1(2)(f), Justice Omotosho introduced Section 3 in the final judgment and referred to its punishment provisions in connection with allegations involving threats against foreign embassies.

The lawyer questioned why Section 3 was allegedly introduced at the judgment stage, arguing that it was not included in the original charge sheet and that Kanu was not given an opportunity to defend himself against an accusation under that provision.

Citing Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Ifedi argued that every accused person has the constitutional right to be informed promptly and in detail of the offence alleged against them to enable adequate preparation of their defence.

He further maintained that a court cannot introduce a new accusation in its final judgment after the conclusion of a trial, insisting that the prosecution must clearly establish its allegations through the charges presented before the court.

In his argument, the lawyer described the alleged departure from the original charges as a violation of Kanu’s right to a fair hearing and questioned the legal basis for the conviction.

Ifedi concluded by insisting that the original charge sheet must be compared with the judge’s findings to determine whether the conviction was based on the offences and legal provisions properly presented before the court.

He challenged those defending the judgment to identify the specific charges that authorised the convictions delivered against the IPOB leader.

The allegations form part of Ifedi’s ongoing legal commentary on Kanu’s conviction. His claims represent his interpretation of the judgment and have not been independently established in this report.