As the appeal process for Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), continues to face delays, legal expert Christopher Chidera has made a bold assertion regarding the validity of the conviction handed down by Justice James Omotosho. Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, claims that the judgment is fundamentally flawed and is effectively 'dead on arrival' at the Court of Appeal.

Chidera's criticism centers on what he describes as a significant miscarriage of justice during Kanu's trial. He argues that Justice Omotosho committed a serious violation of constitutional principles by deviating from the official charge sheet. According to Chidera, the judge introduced a new theory of criminal liability after the defense had already closed its case, which he believes is a violation of Kanu's rights.

The lawyer points to specific instances in the judgment where he alleges that the trial judge improperly included uncharged offenses. He states that Kanu was convicted under Section 3 of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, a charge that was never formally presented during the trial. Chidera emphasizes that this constitutes a fundamental failure of jurisdiction, rendering the entire judgment invalid.

Chidera elaborated on the implications of this judicial approach, stating, "This judgment changes the fundamental basis of criminal responsibility. It represents a total jurisdictional failure that renders the entire proceeding dead on arrival." He insists that the appellate court must address these significant flaws and cannot simply overlook them.

Highlighting the gravity of the situation, Chidera remarked that the defects in the judgment are not mere allegations but are documented facts within the judgment itself. He criticized those who dismiss these concerns as speculative, asserting that the evidence is clear and present in the written judgment of Justice Omotosho.

The lawyer further explained that the original charges against Kanu involved accusations of making broadcasts in support of terrorism. However, in the final judgment, the judge shifted the focus to the broadcasts themselves as the primary acts of terrorism, which Chidera argues is a drastic alteration of the charges that Kanu faced.

Moreover, Chidera pointed out that the introduction of Section 3 as a basis for Kanu's conviction, without prior notice or opportunity for the defense to respond, violates the constitutional right to be informed of the charges against one. He stated, "A court has zero authority to convict a citizen for an offence that was never charged."

With the appeal pending, Chidera is adamant that the Court of Appeal cannot uphold the conviction without addressing these critical legal missteps. He warns that any attempt to maintain the conviction would require the appellate court to ignore the explicit details laid out in the judgment or to alter constitutional rights, both of which he deems unacceptable.

As the legal community watches closely, the outcome of Kanu's appeal could have significant implications for the interpretation of justice and constitutional rights in Nigeria.