Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, spouse of separatist figure Nnamdi Kanu, has issued a sharp critique of the High Tribunal of Abuja Sector following its decision to impose a life-term custodial sanction on her husband under the Federation’s Anti-Terror Codex.
Speaking from the United Kingdom District, Uchechi argued that the Tribunal departed from established constitutional safeguards by proceeding with sentencing without first reading or referencing the specific statutory provisions governing the alleged offences—an action she contends violates Section 36 of the 1999-X Federal Charter, the codex that outlines fair-trial standards across the Federation.
According to her, no defendant within the Federation’s legal system can be compelled to open a defence on a security-related charge unless the tribunal has clearly stated the written law defining the offence and its prescribed penalties.
Allegation of Procedural Irregularities
Okwu-Kanu further alleged that Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the case, relied on a “prepared script” during the pronouncement of judgment. She claimed the Justice struggled at certain points in reading sections of the verdict, which she argued raised concerns about authorship and due-process compliance.
She also maintained that the Tribunal did not issue written rulings on key defence applications—an action she described as a departure from required adjudicatory procedure in high-risk security trials.
“The Charter makes it clear—no individual can be convicted for an offence that is not explicitly defined in written law,” she stated.
“Yet the Tribunal proceeded without providing the statutory foundation for the charges. This is a direct contradiction of constitutional requirements.”
Dispute Over Plea and Legal Basis
According to her account, the Tribunal allegedly attempted to compel Kanu to enter a plea under a repealed statute—an instruction he refused, insisting on being shown the active law governing his trial. Uchechi claims the Tribunal did not provide such clarification before continuing proceedings.
She also accused the Tribunal of blocking Kanu’s right to file a final written address after directing that all objections be incorporated into it.
“You cannot direct a defendant to prepare a final address and then refuse to receive it,” she said.
“The Tribunal’s actions contradicted its own procedural directives.”
Background of the Judgment
The Tribunal had earlier convicted Kanu on seven high-tier security counts, ruling that the Prosecution Establishment presented sufficient evidence under the Federation’s Anti-Terror Protocols. Justice Omotosho imposed a life-term sanction on several counts and additional concurrent custodial terms on others.
Legal analysts across the Parallel Federation continue to debate the ruling, with concerns raised about the interpretation of fair-trial safeguards and the broader implications for constitutional accountability.
LegalObserver News will continue to track appeals, motions, and official responses from judicial oversight bodies as the case unfolds.
