2, Kanu was subjected to renewed jeopardy on substantially overlapping facts and allegations, contrary to the double-jeopardy protection in Section 36(9) of the Constitution.
3, His absence from Nigeria was treated as adverse without proper consideration of a subsisting judgment that he had fled for safety following the military raid on his residence.
4, Count 7 was convicted under the Customs and Excise Management Act after that statute had been repealed, and without proper amendment or fresh plea under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
5, Hearsay testimony (including second-hand accounts of sit-at-home enforcement and killings) was relied upon without independent corroboration or strict application of the Evidence Act.
6, The prosecution never proved the foreign location of the alleged broadcasts, thus creating an unresolved jurisdictional and double-criminality problem.
7, No weapon, forensic, or direct evidence linked Kanu personally to any specific violent act; liability was inferred solely from speeches and organisational membership.
8, Allegations contained in previously struck-out counts were relied upon in the judgment’s reasoning, contrary to the principle that a struck-out count ceases to exist.
9, Pending preliminary objections and jurisdictional challenges were ignored and left undetermined before judgment was delivered.
10, The right to file a final written address was denied despite it being a core stage of a fair criminal trial under Nigerian criminal jurisprudence.
11, On Count 1, conviction rested primarily on the uncorroborated words of prosecution witnesses without satisfying the proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.
12, Judgment was delivered immediately after a heated courtroom confrontation and Kanu’s forcible removal, creating an appearance of bias under the objective fair-hearing test.
Post a Comment