Lawyer Criticizes Justice Omotosho’s Ruling in Nnamdi Kanu Trial

Also Read

 

Human rights lawyer, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has expressed strong concerns over the recent ruling of Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in the ongoing trial of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In a press briefing issued in Abuja, Chidera faulted the court’s decision that Kanu “has to explain certain things in his broadcasts,” describing it as a departure from established legal standards.

Misapplication of No-Case Submission

According to Chidera, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 requires judges to assess both the charges and the sufficiency of prosecution evidence when ruling on a no-case submission. He argued that Justice Omotosho focused only on the charge sheet, overlooking evidence which, he said, collapsed under cross-examination due to inconsistencies.

“This approach runs contrary to Supreme Court precedents, which mandate courts to consider whether prosecution witnesses have been discredited,” he said.

Charges Under a Repealed Law

The lawyer also questioned the validity of prosecuting under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which was repealed by the TPPA 2022. Citing Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, he stressed that courts are obliged to take judicial notice of repealed laws, adding that continuing proceedings under a defunct statute “renders the case a legal nullity.”

Constitutional Concerns

Chidera further pointed to Section 36(11) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits compelling an accused person to prove their innocence. He argued that by insisting Kanu has a case to answer despite the absence of credible evidence or investigation reports, the court “improperly shifted the burden of proof to the accused.”

Judiciary and Executive Interests

He warned that such rulings undermine public trust in the judiciary and suggest executive overreach in politically sensitive cases.

“Courts must serve as impartial arbiters, not instruments of executive will,” Chidera said.

Call to Action

The lawyer urged:

The Court of Appeal to review the ruling urgently.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate what he described as recurring lapses in judicial adherence to law.

The international community and human rights bodies to monitor Nigeria’s compliance with fair trial standards under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

“A trial founded on a repealed law and unsupported by credible evidence is not justice—it is a mockery of due process,” he concluded.