[JUST IN]: Court Drama Over Kanu Transfer Motion Sparks Outrage, Legal Team Cries Judicial Theatre

Also Read

 

A press statement issued on January 28, 2026, has condemned what it described as the “weaponisation of judicial procedure and media complicity” following proceedings at the Federal High Court, Abuja, on January 27.

According to the statement, the widely reported court session involving Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not result in any substantive ruling on the merits of an application seeking the transfer of his case. Instead, the motion was merely struck out on a procedural ground — the absence of proof of service — a development the defence insists is a routine, non-substantive occurrence.

The statement accused sections of the media of deliberately amplifying the procedural decision into a sensational narrative aimed at misleading the public, humiliating Kanu, and inflaming ethnic sentiments. It described the reportage as a “curated narrative” rather than objective journalism.

Allegations of Judicial Impropriety

The defence further raised serious concerns over the conduct of the court, highlighting three key issues:

• Ex-parte Abandonment: The statement claimed the applicant had chosen not to pursue the motion, arguing that the court could have simply noted its abandonment instead of staging what it called a public spectacle through a formal withdrawal by Legal Aid counsel.

• Breach of Confidentiality: It alleged that the compelled public disclosure of supposed attorney-client communications by Legal Aid counsel amounted to a grave violation of professional ethics and an intimidation tactic that undermines the sanctity of legal representation.

• Manufactured Significance: By striking out the motion with remarks commending the withdrawing counsel, the court was accused of turning an administrative action into what the defence termed a “staged morality play” designed for media consumption.

Call for Scrutiny

The statement described the entire episode as “judicial theatre” and alleged that the uniform media coverage across what it called “ethnocentric outlets” suggested a coordinated effort to portray the judicial process as conclusively hostile to Kanu, despite ongoing substantive appeals.

It called on the Nigerian Bar Association to investigate the alleged ethical breaches relating to attorney-client confidentiality, while urging civil society groups and international observers to scrutinise what it described as a growing pattern of procedural weaponisation in politically sensitive cases.

Addressing the public, the defence urged Nigerians to see the media frenzy as a distraction from what it called the state’s continued failure to address the substantive legal and constitutional issues at the heart of the case.

“The fight for justice continues. This manufactured drama changes nothing,” the statement concluded.

The press statement was signed by Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.