The recent court proceedings involving the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, have again sparked controversy over alleged procedural irregularities and breaches of fair trial rights.
During Thursday’s sitting before Justice Inyang Ekwo Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Kanu and his legal representatives raised several objections, accusing the court and the prosecution of undermining established legal principles.
1. Disregard for Appeal Court’s Discharge
Counsel to Kanu argued that his continued detention remains in contempt of the Court of Appeal’s judgment delivered in October 2022, which discharged and acquitted him of terrorism-related charges.
The defence maintained that the Supreme Court did not overturn the discharge, but merely allowed the Federal Government the option to commence a fresh trial, not to continue his detention.
Quoting legal precedent, counsel referenced Hadkinson v. Hadkinson (1952) 2 All ER 567, emphasizing that “a party in contempt cannot be heard until the contempt is purged.”
They contended that the Department of State Services (DSS) cannot seek to prosecute Kanu while disobeying an extant order of release.
2. Dispute Over Court’s Jurisdiction
Kanu, addressing the court directly, reportedly said:
> “I will not be tried under a repealed, dead law.”
His objection was based on the argument that the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act 2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act 2004 (CEMA)—under which he is charged—have been repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
However, Justice Omotosho ruled that the issue of jurisdiction would be considered after the trial, a position the defence described as contrary to legal norms, insisting that jurisdiction must be settled first before any substantive proceedings can continue.
3. Restricted Access to Legal Counsel
Kanu also complained that his consultations with lawyers are monitored and recorded by the DSS, a situation his legal team said violates the constitutional right to confidential counsel under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
The presiding judge, however, dismissed the complaint, stating that Kanu’s right to fair hearing would be exercised through the presentation of his defence and witnesses — a position the defence argued does not align with the constitutional definition of fair hearing.
4. Allegation of Forged Medical Report
Another contentious point was the alleged forgery of a medical report submitted by the DSS.
Kanu told the court that the report was falsified, urging the judge to order an independent investigation. Justice Omotosho reportedly declined, noting that the document had previously been accepted by Kanu’s former counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN).
Defence counsel described the decision as “deeply troubling,” arguing that a court must not rely on any document suspected to be forged.
5. Alleged Pattern of Injustice
Summarizing the day’s events, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., a member of Kanu’s legal team, said the proceedings reflected a pattern of bias and persecution rather than a genuine trial.
According to him, “The government remains in contempt but is still being entertained by the court. The defendant’s right to counsel and fair hearing has been trampled upon, and the refusal to rule on jurisdiction undermines the rule of law.”
He insisted that until the Court of Appeal’s discharge order is obeyed, any further proceedings remain “a legal and moral contradiction.”
Background
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of IPOB, was first arrested in 2015 on charges bordering on treasonable felony and terrorism. After jumping bail in 2017, he was re-arrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in June 2021 under controversial circumstances.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him, ruling that his extraordinary rendition violated due process. However, the Supreme Court in December 2023 upheld the government’s right to retry him but did not expressly vacate the appellate discharge order.
---
Next Steps
The Federal High Court has adjourned the matter for continuation of hearing, with the defence maintaining that the case lacks legal foundation under current law.
Kanu remains in DSS custody pending further court decisions.
![[BREAKING NEWS]:Nigerians In Trouble As Leaked Documents Reveals Tinubu’s Agreement with Controversial Business Tycoon](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj39gfKFg8aZ2Pq_eoxzYPY7vQoQB4vJQ5iXjbzlb028e9rhOqJn7LU834VyPOGJO6KMqyY25tdbE8_AbZYrvJ2A-MPe77GnAXXTxKlCpcHy3Xmrpk5voaOwmC_bUYUoWrh8i8Vya7_odsgKRhByqzF7mVi_H-AQTn3iV_Yo1GkZhLibfcuztuBuz3XE4xS/w680/IMG_9371.jpeg)
