Lawyer Alleges Executive Interference In Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial

Human rights lawyer and public advocate, Barrister Christopher Chidera, Saturday, expressed concerns over Justice Omotosho’s ruling at the Federal High Court, Abuja, which declared that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu “has to explain certain things in his broadcasts.”

The judge had on Friday ruled against Kanu’s no case submission, and ordered that the IPOB leader open his defence against allegations preferred against him by the federal government.

According to the lawyer, in a release, the decision of the court departed from established legal principles and “underscored a troubling trend of prioritizing executive interests over justice in Nigeria’s courts”.

He stated that, “The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 mandates that a no-case submission requires a court to evaluate both the charge and the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. Justice Omotosho’s ruling, however, fixated solely on the charge sheet, disregarding the prosecution’s evidence, which collapsed under cross-examination due to glaring inconsistencies.

“This approach defies Supreme Court precedents, which require judges to assess whether prosecution witnesses have been sufficiently discredited. By sidestepping this duty, the court undermines the integrity of the judicial process.”

He said that it was alarming that Justice Omotosho failed to address the prosecution’s reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013. He noted that Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, “obliges courts to take judicial notice of repealed laws”.

He continued, “Prosecuting under a defunct statute is not a mere technicality—it renders the entire case a legal nullity. This oversight calls into question the court’s jurisdiction and its commitment to the rule of law.”

He described the ruling as a violation of Kanu’s fundamental human rights. “Section 36(11) of the Nigerian Constitution unequivocally protects against self-incrimination, ensuring no accused person is compelled to prove their innocence. By ruling that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu ‘has a case to answer’ despite the absence of a credible investigation report or substantive evidence, the court improperly shifts the burden of proof onto the accused. This is a grave violation of constitutional safeguards and sets a dangerous precedent for fair trial rights.”

He opined that the ruling was a pointer that there was a political undertone in Kanu’s trial. He submitted that, “The judiciary in Abuja appears more committed to sustaining a politically motivated trial than upholding justice. Courts must serve as impartial arbiters, not as instruments of executive will. This ruling erodes public confidence in Nigeria’s judicial system and its adherence to due process.”

He called on the general public to prevail on the judiciary and its allied stakeholders to toe the line of justice.

Quoting him, “The Court of Appeal should swiftly review and rectify these egregious legal errors. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and National Judicial Council (NJC) should investigate recurring lapses in judicial adherence to law and due process in this case. The international community and human rights organizations should monitor Nigeria’s ongoing violations of fair trial standards under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

“A trial founded on a repealed law, unsupported by credible evidence, and demanding the accused disprove the prosecution’s case is not justice—it is a mockery of the rule of law. Justice Omotosho’s ruling serves not the cause of fairness but the agenda of executive theatre cloaked in judicial authority.”

THE WHISTLER reports that Kanu is being detained at the headquarters of the Department of State Services, Abuja. He is accused of terrorism.