Omotosho Sacrificed Kanu As 2027 Yoruba Gift To Fulani - Lawyer Alleges

Also Read

 

A Nigerian lawyer has accused the Federal High Court in Abuja of turning the trial of Nnamdi Kanu into what he described as a political sacrifice designed to cement power alliances ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In a strongly worded public statement, legal practitioner Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq. alleged that Justice J. K. Omotosho deliberately handled Kanu’s case to appease dominant political interests, claiming the process reflects “Abuja justice driven by politics, not law.”

‘A Political Offering, Not a Fair Trial’

According to the lawyer, Kanu is no longer being treated as a defendant entitled to constitutional protections but as a symbolic offering in a broader political arrangement.

He alleged that the decision to move Kanu to detention outside Abuja and the continued prosecution despite disputed legal foundations point to a case designed to serve political goals rather than justice.

“This is not jurisprudence; it is ritual,” Njoku alleged, arguing that legal principles are selectively invoked to justify a pre-determined outcome.

Contradictory Rulings Fuel Allegations

Njoku pointed to what he described as glaring judicial contradictions by Justice Omotosho within a short time frame.

He cited a May 2025 ruling in MultiChoice v. FCCPC, where the judge reportedly held that any executive action lacking the President’s direct signature or valid delegation was a nullity.

However, in September 2025, during FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu, the court allegedly upheld the 2017 proscription of Indigenous People of Biafra, despite claims that the order was signed by the President’s Chief of Staff rather than the President himself.

“Same defect. Same judge. Different outcome,” Njoku alleged, describing the situation as judicial dualism—strict law for citizens, flexible law for the state.

Alleged Erasure of a Prior Court Judgment

The lawyer further claimed that a 2017 Federal High Court ruling which found IPOB not to be an unlawful organisation after hearing both sides was ignored in the current proceedings.

Instead, he alleged that the prosecution relied on an ex parte gazette, issued without the defence being heard—an approach he said violates the principle of audi alteram partem.

‘Process Is the Punishment’

Njoku also accused the court of weaponising procedure, particularly by refusing to terminate the case at the no-case submission stage despite what he called fatal legal flaws.

According to him, forcing the defence into a prolonged trial sends a clear message that “the suffering is the sentence.”

Warning Ahead of 2027

The lawyer warned that allowing political considerations to override legal standards sets a dangerous precedent as the country moves toward another election cycle.

“Today it is Kanu,” he warned. “Tomorrow it could be any Nigerian who stands in the way of power.”

Call for Appellate Intervention

Njoku urged the Court of Appeal to intervene, confront the alleged contradictions, and reaffirm the supremacy of the Constitution.

He concluded that the real issue before Nigeria is no longer just the fate of Kanu or IPOB, but whether the judiciary can remain independent in the face of political pressure.

As of press time, neither the Federal High Court nor the prosecution has issued an official response to the allegations.