In a detailed statement released on social media, Barr. Dr. Emeka Emekesiri, a prominent lawyer and founder and vision bearer of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has broken his silence on the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu. While emphasizing that he will not comment on the merits or demerits of the case to avoid violating the rule of subjudice, Barr. Emekesiri strongly defended the legal basis for the charges against Kanu, countering widespread online reports suggesting that the laws under which Kanu is being tried have been repealed.
Barr. Dr. Emekesiri’s response comes amid growing public discourse and misinformation circulating on the internet about the trial. He described his intervention as a duty to protect the integrity of the legal profession, stating, “As a lawyer, I owe the responsibility to defend the Legal Profession.”
The statement begins with Barr. Emekesiri explaining his initial reluctance to comment: “I decided to keep quiet without commenting on the trial of Nnamdi Kanu because it would be subjudice. I will still maintain my silence without commenting on the merit or demerit of the case.”
He then directly addresses the rumour: “One disturbing report circulating on the internet is that there is no valid law upon which Nnamdi Kanu is being tried. The news is that the Law has been repealed.”
To substantiate his position, Emekesiri obtained and shared what he believes to be the charge sheet against Kanu, noting that he requested it from Kanu’s lawyer, Barr. Aloy Ejimakor, who did not give it to him, but he received it from another source. He cautioned, “I don’t know whether this is the authentic Charge Sheet since Mr. Ejimakor did not send to me the Charge Sheet in his possession being Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer. I will make my comments based on the Charge Sheet I have received.”
The full amended charges, as received by Barr. Emekesiri from another source, are as follows:
NNAMDI KANU CHARGE SHEET
Full List of Amended Charges Against Nnamdi Kanu Filed By FG.
Count one:
That you Nnamdi Kanu, male adult of Afaraukwu lbeku Umahia North Local Government Area of Abia State being the leader of the Indigenous People of Bialra (IPOB) on diverse dates in 2014 and 2015 in London, United Kingdom, did broadcast on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu and other areas within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, preparations made by you and others now at large for states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue States to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to constituting same into the Republic of Biafra and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 41(c) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP. C77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
Count two:
That you Nnamdi Kanu, male, adult, of Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North Local Government Area ot Abia State, on or about the 28th April, 2015 in London, United Kingdom did broadcast on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu, Enugu State and other parts of Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, referred to Major General Muhammadu Buhari, GCON, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a paedophile, a terrorist, an idiot and an embodiment of evil, knowing same to be false and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C. 77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
Count Three:
That you Nnamdi Kanu, male adult of Afaraukwu lbeku Umahia North Local Government Area of Abia State between the month of March and April 2015 imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulusiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra state within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court , a Radio transmitter known as TRAM 50L concealed in a container of used household which you declared as used household items and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 47 (2) of the Criminal Code of Act ,Cap C45, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
Count four:
That you Nnamdi Kanu, male, adult. of Afaraukwu iIbeku, Umuahia North Local Government Area of Abia State in London, United Kingdom between 2018 and 2021 Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu, Enugu State and FCT, Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, professed to be a member of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a proscribed organisation in Nigeria and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 16 Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.
Count five:
That you Nnamdi Kanu, male, adult, of Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North Local Government Area of Abia State on the 22th of April, 2021 in London, United Kingdom on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu, Enugu State and other parts of Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did an act of terrorism in that you incite the other members (followers) of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB}, a proscribed organisation in Nigeria, to look for security personnel, their family members through a Radio Biafra on 102.1FM monitored through the IPOB Community Radio and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 1 (2) (h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act.
Count six:
That you Nnamdi Kanu, male, adult, of Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North Local Government Area of Abia Stale on the 16thh of May, 2021, in London, United Kingdom within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did commit an act in furtherance of an act of terrorism by making a broadcast that “In 2 weeks’ time, what will happen will shake the world, people will die, the whole world will stand still, mark my word” and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 1 (2) (b) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.
Count seven:
That you Nnamdi Kanu, male, adult, of Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North Local Government Area of Abia State on the 31st of May, 2021, in London, United Kingdom within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did an act in furtherance of an act of terrorism by issuing a deadly threat that anyone who flouted your sit-at-home order should “write his/her will,” as a result banks, schools, markets, shopping malls, fuel stations were not opened for businesses and vehicular movements grounded and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 1 (2) (b) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.
Analyzing the charges, Emekesiri noted that Counts 1 to 3 fall under the Criminal Code, which he described as “the foundation of criminal law” and one that “has never been repealed.” Counts 4 to 7, he added, are based on the Terrorism Law.
He urged readers to verify the cited sections themselves: “Please the reader of the above Charge Sheet should make efforts to read the cited sections in the Terrorism Act 2022 and see if they are accurate. More importantly, please read the entirety of Section-98 of the 2022 Act and cross-check that with Nnamdi Kanu’s claim on ‘repealed law’.”
Emekesiri then delved into the legal principles governing repealed laws, explaining the rule of law in such scenarios: “When a law is repealed and replaced with a new law, the impact on ongoing cases or existing causes of action depends on the specific provisions of the new law and the court’s interpretation.”
He outlined possible outcomes, including retroactive application, no retroactive application, and the role of savings clauses. Specifically addressing Kanu’s case, he stated: “In Nnamdi Kanu’s case, the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 includes a saving clause for pending prosecutions or existing causes of action.”
Quoting Section 97 of the Act verbatim, Emekesiri said: “According to Section 97 of the Act, any proceeding, prosecution, sentence, judgment, charge, or cause of action pending or existing immediately before the commencement of this Act under the repealed Act may be continued or commenced, and any determination of a court of law, tribunal, or other authority or person may be enforced to the same extent as if the repealed Act had not been repealed. Any cause of action pending or existing at the time of the repealed law may continue as if the law was not repealed or that the new law was not made.”
He further quoted the section: “Any regulation, order, requirement, certificate, notice, direction, decision, authorisation, consent, application, request, or thing made, issued, given or done under the repealed Acts or amended sections shall, if in force at the commencement of this Act, continue to be in force and have effect as if made, issued, given or done under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”
Barr. Emekesiri concluded that the trial remains valid: “So the prosecution is on course whether the charge is amended or not as ‘merely advised’ by the Supreme Court as an obiter dictum (a statement made by the way). And the judge is right to insist that the Defendant opens his defense.”
He noted recent developments in the case: “Now, we have heard that Nnamdi Kanu has filed a defense. The Court has dispensed with Final Addresses. The Judge is right because Addresses of counsel cannot replace evidence no matter how beautiful the written addresses may be. Again, since Nnamdi Kanu does not have a lawyer to write Final Address, the Prosecution would have an advantage over him if Final Addresses were ordered. It would have been unfair to him. A Court has the right to dispense with Written Addresses of Counsels.”
Ending on a note of patience and hope, Emekesiri wrote: “Let us wait for the judgement of the Court. Let’s pray that Justice prevails in the end.”
The statement has brought further discussions among legal experts and the public, highlighting the complexities of Nigeria’s legal framework in high-profile cases. As the trial progresses, observers continue to monitor for updates from the Federal High Court.