IPOB said that the Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, yesterday, declared Nnamdi Kanu’s case file missing after over one year of trial adding that it was unthinkable that the appellate court would make such a pronouncement.
This was contained in a statement signed by the Media and Publicity Secretary of IPOB, Emma Powerful.
The statement read, “When we thought the judiciary and legal establishment could not sink any lower in Nigeria, the impossible has happened. The Court of Appeal judge today (yesterday) sitting in Abuja has declared the file of the leader of IPOB missing/misplaced.
“It is unheard of in the history of the Nigerian judiciary that (the case file of a matter) coming up for final judgement almost a year after the appellate court’s jury adjourned the matter having heard all the arguments is missing.
“Not only is the delay by the Appeal Court illegal and unconstitutional, the conduct of those that heard and handled this very case is troubling.
“We no longer know what to make of the Nigerian Judicial system. This is beyond a joke. The only thing missing from today’s court hearing is that of the proverbial snake because it wasn’t confirmed if the case file had been swallowed by yet another snake at the Appeal Court.
“We are drawing the attention of the civilised world to the mess in the Nigerian Judiciary; terrorised by a brutal dictatorial regime has turned into. Instead of delivering judgement for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the judiciary would rather break every constitutional provision guiding the time line in cases at the Appeal Court.”
“Nnamdi Kanu is in court to challenge the ruling of Justice John Tsoho who reversed a ruling he gave on yje issue of masking of witnesses in the treasonable felony trial of the IPOB leader and three others.
“This matter is overdue for judgement by one year because the Nigerian constitution, which judges are meant to interpret and uphold, clearly stipulates that all Appeal Court judgements must be delivered within three months. This case is up to a year without any judgement on the matter contrary to constitutional provisions.
“The Chief Justice of the Federation must step into this matter before the already tarnished image of the Judiciary suffers more before the eyes of the world.”