How Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Exposed and Destroyed Awomolo’s Prosecution on 4 November 2025

Also Read

 The prosecution led by Chief Awomolo, SAN, suffered a stunning collapse on 4 November 2025 during the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, according to a public legal brief reviewing the day’s proceedings.

The record shows that Kanu repeatedly demanded that the court identify the law under which he was being tried — a fundamental question in any criminal trial. In response, the prosecution remained silent. No statute was cited, no counter-affidavit filed, no oral argument presented, and no attempt made to justify the court’s jurisdiction.

Legal analysts say this amounted to “complicity through silence,” with Awomolo allowing the court to defer crucial legal questions and ultimately abolish the forum where they could have been addressed. “The prosecution had an opportunity to defend its case, but it did nothing,” the brief states.

Kanu’s legal team notes that prior filings, including a Preliminary Objection supported by sworn affidavits, highlighted issues such as repeal of the charging law, Section 36(12) of the Constitution, and alleged extraordinary rendition. All of these challenges went unanswered, leaving unchallenged evidence admitted by default.

Even when Justice Omotosho suggested that Section 36(12) applied only at the conviction stage, the prosecution failed to contest or support the position — exposing the trial’s dependence on judicial deferral rather than law. Similarly, allegations of extraordinary rendition, previously recognized by appellate courts and the Supreme Court as state criminality, were ignored by the prosecution.

According to legal observers, the record demonstrates a coordinated effect between judicial deferral and prosecutorial silence. “Kanu raises the law, the prosecution stays silent, the court defers, and the trial continues,” the brief notes, describing it as a perversion of adversarial justice.

The brief concludes that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not just defend himself; he exposed a prosecution without legal foundation and forced constitutional questions into the public record, highlighting the State’s inability to establish a lawful case.

Legal analyst Okezie Duruji, PhD, commented: “On November 4, the prosecution’s only response was silence. That record now speaks louder than any argument could.”