The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium has described the trial of the jailed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, leader as prosecution from the bench.
The consortium, a group of lawyers fighting for Kanu’s
freedom, made the assertion in a statement released on Thursday by a lawyer,
Onyedikachi Ifedi.
Ifedi said the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, defied
mandatory supreme court commands in arriving at the conviction of the agitator.
“When a trial judge actively selects which statutory
commands to obey and which to ignore in order to preserve a politically charged
prosecution, that is not an innocent oversight — that is prosecution from the
bench,” the lawyer stated.
The lawyer added that provisions of the Evidence Act were
wilfully overlooked in the proceedings leading to Kanu’s conviction.
He said, “Justice James Omotosho cannot claim ignorance,
oversight, or unfamiliarity with the Evidence Act. His own judgment proves he
knew the law, understood its mandatory duty, and knew precisely how to deploy
it as a legal weapon.”
Ifedi cited page 34 of the judgment delivered on November
20, 2025, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mazi
Nnamdi Kanu), where Justice Omotosho stated: “This Court is bound to take
judicial notice of the laws of the land as well as gazetted orders and rulings
of courts of coordinate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 122 of the Evidence
Act, 2011. Consequently, this Court takes judicial notice of the Order of this
Court delivered by Kafarati, J. (as he then was) in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/878/2017
between Attorney General of the Federation v. Indigenous People of Biafra,
delivered on 20th September 2017, proscribing the Defendant’s organization as a
terrorist group.”
According to him, “The trial judge admitted in black and
white that the statutory command was mandatory. He weaponised Section 122 to
import Justice Kafarati’s ex parte proscription order into the trial to convict
the defendant. Yet, when the exact same Section 122 was invoked by the defense
to challenge the legal foundation of the charge sheet itself, the court
suddenly went blind and mute.”
Ifedi further alleged that the trial judge defied a binding
Supreme Court pronouncement that Nigerian courts are under an inescapable duty
to take judicial notice of primary statutory enactments, including repealed
laws.
“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, Justice Omotosho had
zero legal room to maneuver. He was bound by the statute. He was bound by
Supreme Court precedent. He had already acknowledged the rule on page 34 of his
judgment. Ignoring this binding obligation when it favored the defendant was an
act of open judicial defiance,” Ifedi declared.
The lawyer in the same vein alleged that the trial judge
took advantage of Kanu “an unrepresented defendant”, during the proceedings of
November 4 and 5, 2025.
According to him, Kanu while standing in the dock without
counsel, pleaded with the judge to take judicial notice of the repeal of the
Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and the non-existence of Criminal
Code Act C-45.
However, Ifedi stated that instead of stopping the trial to
perform the mandatory statutory duty, “which would have instantly exposed that
the charge sheet was built on dead laws, Justice Omotosho brushed the
application aside, forced the trial forward, and enticed the defendant to
proceed under a false premise”.
According to Ifedi, “To refuse to take judicial notice when
invoked by an unrepresented defendant, only to force him to trial on repealed
laws, constitutes a total failure of fair hearing and a judicial ambush.”
Alleging double standards in the way the trial was conducted, the Mazi Nnamdi Global
Legal Consortium decried what it described as selective obedience to the
Evidence Act.
Ifedi stated, “The certified trial record exposes an
irreconcilable double standard in how Section 122 was deployed. When Section
122 assisted the State, it was an absolute mandatory command (“This court is
bound”). When Section 122 demonstrated that the charges were legally dead, it
was ignored and replaced with a post-hoc assumption. That is not neutral
adjudication. That is railroading under the color of judicial authority.”
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com