Legal analysts and constitutional experts are raising serious concerns over the recent judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in the case involving the detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. A closer examination of the ruling reveals a series of procedural lapses, constitutional violations, and judicial inconsistencies that collectively undermine the validity of the judgment.
Below is a clear, simplified breakdown of the major issues.
1. Failure to Determine Jurisdiction Before Proceeding
A fundamental requirement of criminal adjudication is resolving whether the court has the lawful authority to hear a case. Kanu’s legal team raised this objection, challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Rather than address it, Justice Omotosho sidestepped the issue.
Under Nigerian law, any proceedings conducted without first resolving jurisdiction are null and void. The judge’s refusal to rule on this threshold question casts a shadow over the entire trial.
2. Directing Objections to a Final Address, Then Blocking the Final Address
Kanu was instructed by the court to include all objections—including jurisdiction—in his final written address. But when the time came, the judge:
Prevented the filing of final addresses
Issued judgment without hearing any of those objections
This sequence constitutes a clear breach of fair hearing, effectively silencing the defence after inviting them to speak.
3. Failure to Issue Written Rulings on Critical Applications
Judges are legally required to provide written reasons when ruling on applications. Several key motions—covering illegal rendition, abuse of process, double criminality, repealed statutes, and defective charges—were filed before judgment.
Justice Omotosho delivered no written decisions on any of them. This omission alone renders the judgment procedurally defective.
4. Compelling Kanu to Plead to Charges Based on a Repealed Law
The prosecution relied on the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, even though the 2022 Terrorism Act has replaced it. Despite this, the court:
Acknowledged the repeal but ignored its implications
Forced Kanu to take a plea under a defunct statute
A repealed law cannot sustain a criminal charge. Any proceedings based on such legislation are legally invalid.
5. Ignoring Section 36(12) of the Constitution
The Nigerian Constitution is unequivocal:
No one can be convicted for an offence not defined in a valid, existing written law.
Yet the judgment relied on:
Allegations not contained in the charge
Claims unsupported by evidence
Accusations no witness ever made
One notable example was the assertion that Kanu plotted to bomb foreign embassies during the EndSARS protests—an allegation absent from all charge sheets, testimonies, and prosecution materials. This raises serious concerns about judicial overreach and the invention of facts not before the court.
6. Elevating a “Savings Clause” Above the Constitution
The court relied on a savings clause in the 2022 Terrorism Act which states that ongoing cases may continue under the old law. Legal experts note that:
A savings clause cannot override the Constitution
A repealed law remains repealed
No individual can be tried under legislation that no longer exists
By placing the savings clause above constitutional guarantees, the judgment contradicts established legal hierarchy.
7. Avoidance of the Mandatory “Double Criminality” Test
Since the government alleged Kanu committed offences in Kenya, Nigerian law requires proof that:
The alleged act is a crime in Kenya
Kenya provided supporting evidence
No such evidence—police reports, witnesses, or documentation—was presented. The court avoided this indispensable legal test, further undermining the legitimacy of the trial.
8. The Judgment Is Void Due to Denial of Fair Hearing
In criminal law, the denial of fair hearing automatically nullifies all subsequent proceedings. By refusing to entertain objections, blocking final addresses, and failing to respond to pending motions, the court violated this fundamental principle.
Once fair hearing is denied, the judgment has no legal standing.
9. Introduction of Claims Not Supported by Any Evidence
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the judgment is the introduction of allegations that did not originate from the prosecution. Assertions about alleged plans to bomb US and UK missions:
Were never charged
Were never mentioned by any witness
Do not appear in any prosecution documents
Were not part of any investigative report
Introducing unsubstantiated claims violates judicial ethics and constitutes a serious procedural irregularity.
10. Conclusion: A Judgment That Cannot Stand on Appeal
A review of the ruling shows extensive constitutional, statutory, and procedural violations, including:
Ignoring jurisdiction
Denial of fair hearing
Reliance on repealed laws
Failure to rule on applications
Introduction of facts outside the evidence
Misinterpretation of constitutional provisions
Legal experts believe the judgment is fundamentally defective and unlikely to survive appellate scrutiny. It also raises broader questions about judicial accountability and the protection of constitutional rights.
#FreeMaziNnamdiKanuNow
![[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)
