Prosecution: Why Nnamdi Kanu deserves death sentence

The Federal Government has asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to impose death sentence on the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu. Adegboyega Awomolo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and lead Counsel for the Federal Government, made the submission after the court found Kanu guilty of all seven counts […]

Prosecution: Why Nnamdi Kanu deserves death sentence

Nnamdi Kanu

The Federal Government has asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to impose death sentence on the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

Adegboyega Awomolo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and lead Counsel for the Federal Government, made the submission after the court found Kanu guilty of all seven counts of terrorism filed against him.

Justice James Omotosho held that the evidence of the prosecution was uncontroverted as Kanu failed to open his defence.

Delivering judgment, Justice James Omotosho held that the prosecution had proved its case and found Kanu guilty on all counts.

The charges included engaging in acts the government classified as terrorism, belonging to and leading a proscribed organisation, issuing threats to security operatives, destroying property, concealment, and the alleged importation of an unregistered radio transmitter.

Following the verdict, Awomolo urged the court to impose the maximum sentence allowed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Awomolo told the court that several of the offences for which Kanu was convicted attract the death penalty under Section 12H of the Act.

“My Lord, consequent upon the conviction, nothing further remains but the lawful imposition of sentence.”

“The punishment prescribed for the offences in Counts One, Two, Four, Five and Six, pursuant to Section 12H of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, is death.

“With all sense of humility, I say as a prosecutor that this court has no discretion in that regard.

He further argued that the court had no discretion in the matter, saying the provisions of the Act were explicit and should be applied strictly.