The Okwu Kanu family said it was speaking “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity” about the court’s ruling in a statement released on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on their behalf.

“We raised several legal points in court, including Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions on repealed laws, and previous directives related to earlier charges,” they stated.

“No person shall be convicted unless the offense is defined in a written law in force at the time,” the family said, emphasizing the significance of constitutional protections. They also noted that other Supreme Court decisions uphold this idea.
“We have concerns ” about the application of transition or savings clauses and how they relate to this case,” the family stated in reference to the legal reasoning used in the decision.

The statement also discussed the court’s use of a transition or savings clause, pointing out that it might not be applicable because, according to the family, “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s matter was not pending.”

“The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him,” they said. The ensuing charges before Justice Omotosho began “a new case, commencing de novo,” according to the ruling that “terminated all charges.”
“A case that was terminated cannot be ‘saved’ by a transition clause,” the family said, highlighting the need of fundamental guarantees.

Noting that “the right to be tried only under laws in force, to be informed of the exact charges, and not to be convicted under repealed or non-existent laws cannot be overridden,” they also voiced concerns regarding the fundamental rights protected by Section 36 of the Constitution.

override Section 36,” the statement continued, referring to the structure of legal power. Constitution cannot be superseded by any act. The Supreme Court cannot be overruled by a judge.

“All proceedings should align with existing laws and procedures,” the statement added, urging adherence to the Constitution and established legal procedures.