Kanu’s Defence Team Urges Federal High Court to Hear Motion to Arrest Judgment Before Ruling

Also Read

 The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium has called on the Federal High Court, Abuja, to hear and determine a Motion to Arrest Judgment filed on 10 November 2025 before delivering any final verdict in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In a public briefing issued by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., the Consortium emphasized that the motion is a lawful judicial procedure designed to prevent judgment where jurisdictional or procedural defects remain unresolved.

“To ‘arrest’ judgment is to compel obedience to the Constitution—to ensure that no judgment is delivered in breach of the right to fair hearing,” the statement reads, citing Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

The legal team stressed that fair hearing is a non-derogable right, citing Kotoye v. CBN (1989), where the Supreme Court held that the right lies in the opportunity to be heard, not merely the correctness of a decision.

The briefing also clarified that claims suggesting Kanu “refused to enter defence” are misleading. The defence has already cross-examined prosecution witnesses, undermining the credibility and integrity of the government’s evidence.

“Kanu has no obligation to call witnesses in defence of a charge that itself is a nullity,” the statement added, noting that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 under which he was charged has been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

The Consortium warned that proceeding to judgment without first resolving the motion would:

• Deny Kanu his constitutional right to be heard;

• Render the judgment null and void ab initio, referencing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) and Newswatch v. Attah (2006);

• Undermine judicial legitimacy and the supremacy of the Constitution.

The briefing concluded with a call to the court, the Nigerian Bar Association, civil society, the media, and the international community to uphold the non-derogable right to fair hearing and prevent the issuance of an unconstitutional judgment.

“Justice Omotosho stands at a defining juncture: to affirm the supremacy of the Constitution or risk being recorded in history as the judge who pronounced judgment over silence,” the statement warned.