0:00
Kingsley Kanto Kanu the younger brother
0:02
to Marzi Nambi Kanu in an ex post has
0:05
reshared by barristister a lawyer Gi
0:07
Mccor the coordinating lawyer for the
0:09
detained Bafra republic agitation leader
0:12
Mazi Nami Kanu has given reasons why his
0:15
elder brother had continued to defend
0:17
himself on the ground of no case
0:19
submission saying the federal government
0:22
of Nigeria who made the accusations and
0:24
filed the terrorism charges against the
0:27
Bafra leader has not been able to
0:29
pinpoint point any aspect of the
0:31
Nigerian laws that should warrant his
0:33
brother Mazi Nambi Kanu to enter defense
0:36
citing several court rulings that
0:38
invalidated the federal government
0:40
accusations against the detained Bafra
0:42
leader this Kingsley Kanta stated in
0:46
reaction to the commentary of Dr. Samadi
0:49
published on this day newspaper after
0:51
the detained leader of the indigenous
0:53
people of Bafra Nami Kanu on Monday
0:56
abandoned his earlier plan to call
0:58
witnesses in his ongoing trial before
1:01
the federal high court in Abuja. Nandi
1:04
Kano who is being prosecuted on seven
1:06
counts of terrorism charges brought
1:08
against him by the federal government
1:10
last two Friday had prayed the court for
1:13
an adjournment after informing the trial
1:15
judge justice James Amatosho that his
1:18
former legal team led by a former
1:20
attorney general of the federation and
1:22
minister of justice chief Kanu Agabi San
1:26
had yet to release his case file to him
1:28
though Nandi Kanu had earlier expressed
1:31
his readiness to open his defense in a
1:33
written application to the court in
1:36
which he indicated his intention to call
1:38
witnesses and requested the issuance of
1:40
witness summons. But at the resumed
1:42
hearing on Monday, Kanu told the court
1:45
that upon reviewing the case file, he
1:47
had concluded that there was no valid
1:49
charge against him. Nandi Kanu argued
1:52
that since he believed the charges were
1:54
unlawful and that the prosecution had
1:56
failed to establish any case, there was
1:58
no need for him to proceed with his
2:00
defense. According to Punch newspaper,
2:03
the trial judge, Justice Jameso,
2:07
directed Kanu to file a written address
2:09
formally stating his position and to
2:11
serve the prosecution accordingly.
2:13
Justice further advised the IPOB leader
2:17
to consult experts in criminal law to
2:19
understand the possible legal
2:21
implications of his decision. The judge
2:23
thereafter adjourned the case to
2:25
November 4th, 5, and six for the
2:28
adoption of final written addresses
2:30
based either on Carnu's position that no
2:32
case had been established against him or
2:34
for him to proceed with his defense if
2:36
he decides otherwise. Kingsley can caru
2:40
statement as recirculated by barrister
2:42
Aloy on Thursday tagged legal rejoinder
2:47
to the misleading commentary by Dr.
2:49
Samadi published in this day of the 30th
2:52
of October 2025 titled if I were Kanu I
2:56
would not refuse to write a defense
2:58
stated as follows below. One
3:01
introduction correcting a misguided
3:04
narrative the recent article by Dr.
3:07
Samardi in this day at this dev of the
3:10
30th of October 2025 suggesting that
3:13
Mazi Nami Kanu should write a defense
3:16
instead of claiming he has no case
3:18
exemplifies how poorly informed
3:20
commentary can distort constitutional
3:22
discourse in Nigeria. While the piece
3:25
parades itself as legal analysis, it
3:28
fundamentally misstates the law and
3:29
facts of Marzi Kanu's case. Kanu is not
3:33
refusing to defend himself. He is
3:35
asserting the obvious and unassalable
3:37
fact that there exists no valid
3:39
cognisable charge known to Nigerian law
3:42
for him to defend. That is not defiance.
3:45
It is constitutional obedience. Two, the
3:48
settled matter of rendition. A closed
3:51
chapter contrary to Dr. Amardi's
3:54
impression the illegality of Kanu's
3:56
abduction and extraordinary rendition
3:58
from Kenya has been conclusively
4:00
settled. It is not in contention and not
4:03
on trial. The matter has been determined
4:06
by the court of appeal paroludot and
4:11
jca in FRN versus caru ca abj cr 625
4:20
which discharged kanu on the 13th of
4:23
October 2022 and declared his rendition
4:26
unlawful. The United Nations Human
4:28
Rights Council, UNHRC,
4:31
July 2022, and the UN Special
4:34
Raportchure on Counterterrorism and
4:36
Human Rights, March 2023, both
4:39
confirming violations of international
4:41
law. the Federal High Court which
4:44
recognized the illegality of the
4:46
rendition and the Supreme Court for
4:49
Emanuel Aim JSC who acknowledged that
4:52
Kanu's abduction was a grave violation
4:55
of international and domestic law.
4:57
Therefore, to suggest that Kanu is
5:00
hiding behind rendition is disingenuous.
5:04
That issue is resjudicator finally and
5:06
conclusively determined. Three, the crux
5:09
of the matter. No charge known to law.
5:12
Marzi Kanu's insistence that he has no
5:15
case to answer rests squarely on section
5:18
3612 of the Constitution of the Federal
5:21
Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. A
5:26
person shall not be convicted of a
5:28
criminal offense unless that offense is
5:30
defined and the penalty therefore is
5:32
prescribed in a written law. The present
5:35
charge FHC ABJ CR 383
5:42
is built upon laws that have ceased to
5:44
exist. Counts 1 2 5 and 8 are founded on
5:47
the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act
5:50
2013 repealed by section 97 of the
5:53
Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act
6:00
Count 15, now seven, is founded on the
6:03
Customs and Excise Management Act, CMA,
6:10
repealed by section 2811
6:13
of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023
6:17
and counts 1 2 6 alleging acts in Kenya
6:21
have no validation under section 761
6:25
D, Roman Figure 3, TPPA 2022, which
6:30
mandates that the alleged act must be
6:32
punishable under Kenyan law and
6:34
certified by a Kenyan court. These are
6:37
not technicalities. They are
6:39
jurisdictional voids. A man cannot be
6:42
tried for an offense that is not defined
6:44
by an existing law. To insist otherwise
6:47
is to drag the judiciary into
6:49
constitutional heresy. Four,
6:51
constitutional supremacy and non-
6:53
derogable immunity. When the court of
6:56
appeal discharged CANU on the 13th of
6:58
October 2022, that discharge triggered
7:01
the non-terogable constitutional
7:03
immunity enshrined in section 369.
7:07
No person who shows that he has been
7:09
tried by any court of competent
7:11
jurisdiction for a criminal offense and
7:13
either convicted or acquitted shall
7:15
again be tried for that offense or for
7:17
an offense having the same facts
7:19
constituting that offense. This immunity
7:22
is permanent, self-executing and non-
7:25
derogable as confirmed by sections 1 3
7:28
and 451 of the constitution. No law,
7:33
court, or executive order can override
7:35
it. Even in times of national emergency,
7:38
this right remains untouchable. Thus,
7:41
the Supreme Court's remitt order of the
7:43
15th of December 2023 being inconsistent
7:47
with section 369 cannot lawfully revive
7:50
a null charge. Under section 13, any act
7:55
inconsistent with the constitution is
8:01
bringing you the news in a more digital
