Convicting Kanu Shows Evidence Does Not Matter In Court – Defence Adviser

A legal adviser to detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., has criticised the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, arguing that it demonstrates that evidence no longer matters in Nigerian courts.

Nnamdi was convict of treason-related charges and was sent to Sokoto prison. His recent bid to move him from Sokoto prison was unsuccessful.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Njoku said the most troubling aspect of the judgment was not its outcome but what he described as the deliberate refusal of the court to evaluate material evidence already admitted during trial.

“The most dangerous aspect of the judgment is not merely that it reached a foreordained conclusion, but that it did so by deliberately suppressing evidence already admitted on record,” he said. “This converts adjudication into a procedural façade.”

According to him, once evidence is admitted, a judge is legally bound to evaluate it, irrespective of the conduct, protest or silence of the defendant.

“Judgment writing is not a negotiation with the accused,” he said, “It is a solemn judicial duty anchored exclusively on the evidentiary record,” Njoku stated.

“A judge may reject defence evidence,” he said, “But he must first confront it, evaluate it, and explain why it is rejected. Silence is not neutrality. Silence is suppression.”

He argued that several key exhibits tendered during trial were ignored in the final judgment, despite their relevance to the allegations against Kanu.

Njoku cited a video exhibit of former Defence Minister, Theophilus ‘TY’ Danjuma, which he said showed that public calls for communities to arm themselves in self-defence were not unique to Kanu and were never criminalised when made by influential figures.

“Had Justice Omotosho evaluated that exhibit, he would have been confronted with the reality that calls for self-defence were openly made by establishment figures,” he said.

“Proper evaluation would have shown that Kanu’s statements were framed as community self-defence against violent attacks, not incitement to lawlessness.”

He also referred to an admitted video statement by Imo State Governor Hope Uzodinma, which he said absolved Kanu and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) of responsibility for the killing of former presidential aide Ahmed Gulak.
“Governor Uzodinma publicly stated that neither Kanu nor IPOB had a hand in that killing,” Njoku said.

“That single evaluation would have punctured one of the most politicised allegations surrounding this case,” he added.

The defence counsel further referenced statements attributed to the Director-General of the Department of State Services, Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, which he said were admitted in evidence and showed that community-based vigilante groups had been endorsed at the highest levels of Nigeria’s security architecture.

“If those statements had been examined, the court would have been forced to acknowledge that the formation of armed vigilante groups for community defence was officially encouraged,” he said.

“That acknowledgement would naturally support the position that Kanu acted to defend Igboland when the state failed to do so.”

Njoku also cited the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry report on the #EndSARS protests, which he said was tendered in evidence but ignored in the judgment. According to him, the report attributed much of the violence during the period to the actions of security agencies rather than to Kanu or IPOB broadcasts.

“That report dismantles the lazy and dishonest attribution of nationwide violence to IPOB,” he said. “Ignoring it stripped the prosecution’s case of moral and evidentiary legitimacy.”

He further argued that documents before the court showed that Kanu had written to South-East governors urging them to establish a regional security outfit similar to Amotekun, and that their refusal led to the formation of the Eastern Security Network (ESN).

“Proper judicial evaluation would have made clear that ESN was conceptually and functionally similar to Amotekun, differing only in political acceptance,” he said.

Njoku also faulted the judgment for allegedly ignoring basic chronology, noting that Kanu had been in the custody of the Department of State Services since June 2021 without access to communication.

“A man held incommunicado, without phones, visitors or access to counsel, cannot be directing events outside detention walls,” he said. “Time itself disproves the allegation.”
He warned that ignoring timelines amounts to abandoning causation in criminal adjudication.

“When courts ignore chronology, conviction becomes a matter of narrative convenience rather than proof,” he added.

Njoku insisted that the arguments raised were not speculative but based on exhibits admitted by the court, stressing that their proper evaluation would have undermined the foundation of the conviction.

“These were admitted exhibits. Their collective evaluation would have collapsed the architecture of the conviction. That is precisely why they were ignored,” he said.

He described the alleged refusal to evaluate the evidence as deliberate and outcome-driven.

“It was not accidental or procedural. It was driven by an overriding determination to convict, regardless of the evidentiary record,” Njoku said.

The legal practitioner also criticised what he described as the silence of major international media organisations, accusing them of reproducing the conclusions of the judgment without interrogating its evidentiary gaps.

“None asked the most basic question any law student would ask: why did the court ignore defence evidence it had admitted?” he said.

“By failing to interrogate that omission, sections of the media have become unwitting accomplices in laundering judicial misconduct.”

He warned that the implications of the case extend beyond the fate of one individual.

“This is no longer about one man. It is about whether courts can openly disregard admitted evidence and still be treated as legitimate,” Njoku said.

“A judiciary that ignores evidence without explanation ceases to function as a court of law, and a media that refuses to question such silence abandons its public duty. Together, they place the rule of law itself in existential peril,” he said.