Federal High Court has dismissed as fake news a report claiming that Justice James Omotosho survived an assassination attempt following the life sentence he imposed on Nnamdi Kanu.
In a statement issued today, the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Sulaiman Hassan, refuted the report, describing it as false and baseless.
He said the publication was misleading and capable of causing unnecessary anxiety.
The court clarified that the claim had no factual foundation and urged the public to disregard it to prevent further spread of misinformation.
It also called on security agencies and relevant regulators to investigate the source of the report, identify those responsible, and ensure they are prosecuted under existing laws on cybercrime, defamation, and public misinformation.
The court noted that such deliberate falsehoods could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and may have been intended to intimidate judicial officers.
Justice Omotosho had on Thursday sentenced Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, to life imprisonment on several terrorism-related charges.
The judge imposed life sentences on counts one, two, four, five, and six, and five years’ imprisonment without an option of fine on count seven, which involved the unlawful importation of a radio transmitter to advance the activities of Radio Biafra.
He ordered that counts three and seven run concurrently.
In delivering the judgment, the court considered the defendant’s conduct during the trial, describing it as consistently unruly and lacking remorse.
It noted that although the law permitted the imposition of the death penalty for the offences, the judge opted for a life sentence.
The court further directed that Kanu be held in protective custody outside the Kuje Correctional Centre and placed restrictions on his access to digital devices to prevent further incitement.
Any use of such devices, the court said, must be strictly monitored by the Office of the National Security Adviser.
The Department of State Services was also informed that it could apply for the forfeiture of other exhibits recovered from the defendant after the expiration of the 90-day appeal window.
