…Says prosecution yet to establish prima facie evidence
As the Federal High Court in Abuja prepares to rule on the no-case submission filed by the legal team of detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a statement outlining its position on the ongoing legal proceedings.
In a public briefing signed by Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB’s Director of Media and Publicity, the group listed “Eight Legal Questions That Must Be Addressed Before Any Further Trial,” urging the court to weigh them in determining the validity of the case.
Quoting Justice Binta Nyako’s earlier observation that “no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence,” the statement emphasized the need for strict adherence to legal standards as the court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, prepares to make its decision.
Absence of Investigation Report: IPOB noted that no investigation report has been presented to support the allegations against Kanu, stressing that such documentation is foundational in criminal proceedings.
Testimonies of Security Officers: The group expressed concern over reliance on testimonies from security officials, suggesting that such evidence should be corroborated and scrutinized carefully, especially where it involves high-profile matters.
Unnamed Collaborators: In cases involving alleged conspiracy, IPOB argued that failure to name or charge any co-defendants may weaken the prosecution’s claims.
No Identified Victim: The statement highlighted the lack of any publicly named victim or injured party, asserting that this is essential in establishing the alleged offences.
Association Not Sufficient for Liability: IPOB maintained that mere affiliation with a group, even one under proscription, does not automatically constitute evidence of criminal activity without proof of specific actions.
Broadcasts Require Proof of Impact: The group emphasized that public broadcasts, on their own, do not amount to criminal conduct unless clearly linked to unlawful acts or consequences.
Lack of Supporting Elements: IPOB stated that a valid prosecution must be supported by clear evidence, witnesses, and lawful procedures to proceed.
Proscription Not Equivalent to Proof: The statement pointed out that the proscription of IPOB was done through an ex parte process and is currently under legal challenge, suggesting that it should not be the sole basis for criminal proceedings.
IPOB urged the court to consider these legal concerns carefully before ruling on whether the case should proceed. The group reiterated its respect for the judiciary and expressed confidence in the rule of law.
The post Nnamdi Kanu: IPOB raises legal questions ahead of court ruling appeared first on Vanguard News.
