Kanu’s wife condemns her husband Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, claiming the court used an outdated law to reach its verdict. She argues that the legislation applied in the case was repealed years ago, invalidating the ruling.
Uchechi Okwu-Kanu asserts that her husband was forced to plead guilty or not guilty under a law that no longer exists. She believes this violates basic legal principles and delegitimizes the sentence. According to her, no impartial judicial system should convict anyone using an expired law.
She also accuses the court of relying on allegations that were never presented during the trial. Uchechi claims that some statements in the verdict were fabricated and do not correspond to what transpired in court. She insists this denies Kanu his right to a fair trial.
In her statement, she rejects the court’s reliance on a safeguard clause to validate the outdated law. She argues that such a clause cannot revive a law that has already been repealed. For her, a dead law cannot be used to punish anyone, regardless of the circumstances.
Uchechi also questions how the court handled the Kenyan-related allegations. She claims the judge referenced events that supposedly occurred there, even though no witnesses or evidence were presented from Kenya. She believes this further aggravates the verdict.
She concludes that the trial lacked impartiality, transparency, and due process. In her opinion, the sentence cannot be upheld on appeal because it is based on flawed reasoning, a lack of evidence, and an invalid legal basis.
Her comments have sparked strong reactions. Many supporters and human rights advocates are now questioning whether the judicial system respected the rule of law in this case. The debate continues to grow as more Nigerians demand clarity and accountability.
Be the first to comment