By CHARLES IWUOHA

Seasoned legal practitioner, Uche Onyeagucha, has faulted the life sentence handed to Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB), by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High court in Abuja.

Onyeagucha, a former lawmaker who represented the people of Owerri Federal Constituency of Imo[CM1] State, averred that Justice Omotosho was in a hurry to convict Nnamdi Kanu.

He described it as sham trial, illegal null, void and of no effect, saying that Justice Omotosho failed to follow provision sections 267 and 349(6)(b) of Administration of criminal justice Act 2015.

According to Onyeagucha, these provisions require that a person charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment shall be represented by a lawyer.

In a statement he personally signed on Sunday, said that it is the responsibility of the Court in this case led by Justice Omotosho to have assigned Mazi Nnamdi Kanu a lawyer to represent him.

The legal luminary further cited Particularly in section 349(6)(b), of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the provides that "a defendant charged with a capital offence or an offence punishable with life imprisonment SHALL not be allowed to represent and defend himself."

Part of the statement reads: "Omotosho J. failed to follow this provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 by allowing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to represent himself against the spirit of the law, which says that he shall not be allowed to defend himself.

"Mazi Nnamdi Kanu under the provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act did not have Legal Representation as envisaged by the A.C.J Act 2015.

"Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not have a fair trial and fair hearing as a person charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment.

"The sham trial, conviction and sentence by Omotosho J. will be set aside by the Court of Appeal relying on the combined effects of the provisions of Sections 267 and 349(6)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Omotosho J. did not follow the Law in discharging his duty as a Judge. The Judgement will collapse on appeal.”