Nnamdi Kanu: Senior lawyers differ on conviction, life imprisonment

SKAiF NewsNG SNN SKAiF NewsNG SNN
Nov 27, 2025 - 02:00
0 1
Kanu raises alarm, alleges tricks by FG to perpetually hold him down Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has drawn attention to what he described as serial executive and judicial fraud being perpetrated against him since his extraordinary rendition in 2021. In an open letter addressed to Nigerians yesterday, Kanu said: ‘’In a judgment entered on March 1, 2017, the Federal High Court, Abuja, ruled that the ‘IPOB is not an unlawful group’. At the time, it received widespread publicity which can be verified. ‘’This landmark ruling (made by the court before it turned unjust) emanated in a criminal proceedings that required ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and in which the federal government and my humble self presented our respective cases. ‘’Alas! Instead of the federal government to go on appeal as the law mandated (if they are dissatisfied with the judgment), the former Attorney-General (Abubakar Malami) went behind closed doors with a letter signed by late Abba Kyari and got IPOB proscribed/tagged a terrorist group in an ex parte proceedings that conducted without notice to me or to the IPOB. ‘’This abominable incident was the earliest sign yet that the government and its judiciary have struck an unholy and fraudulent alliance to deny me my rights and thereby imperil the life and liberty of millions who identity with IPOB. ‘’On October 26, 2022, a Federal High Court declared my extraordinary rendition and detention as unconstitutional, stating that: ‘the manner of arrest and detention of the Applicant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) in Kenya, his continued detention in Abuja, his subjection to physical and mental trauma by the Respondents, the inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to the Applicant amounts to a brazen violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of his person and threat to life under Section 34 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).’ ‘’The court further ordered the federal government to apologize to me and pay me compensation. In a responsible society and well-ordered, run by a responsible government, this judgment is sufficient to have ended my lengthy detention and encourage the federal government to constructively engage me on the issue of the self-determination agitation that triggered this whole saga. ‘’Pedal back to October 13, 2022, when the Court of Appeal held that: ‘The courts must never shy away from calling the executive to order when they resort to acts of ‘executive lawlessness.’ ‘’The duty of the courts is to maintain a balance between ensuring that law and order is obeyed and the protection of the individual from oppressive actions by the executive. ‘’By the forcible abduction and extraordinary rendition of the Appellant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) from Kenya to this country on the 27th day of June 2021, in violation of international and state laws, the lower court or, indeed, any court in this country is divested of jurisdiction to entertain charges against the Appellant’. ‘’Despite the clarity of this judgment and its comportment with reason, the federal government refused to release me from detention while it went behind closed doors and connived with three other justices of the court of appeal who fraudulently and swiftly sat on appeal over the judgment and practically destroyed it by issuing what they termed ‘a stay of execution’. ‘’One may then ask: Is it not abominable for a court to stay a judgment the government already disobeyed? In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has held that anybody who disobeys a related court order cannot be given any judicial relief until such order is obeyed. ‘’This is a sound reasoning that applied to everybody but is fraudulently overlooked when it comes to my case. Fast forward to 15th December 2023 when the Supreme Court sent back my case to the Federal High Court for trial. ‘’For avoidance of doubt, that was not the only decision the Supreme Court made. It also decided that my bail should not have been revoked and it went on to state clearly that the judge exhibited significant and unacceptable bias by revoking my bail. ‘’In a sane society, one would expect that when the High court received my case from the Supreme Court and hankered down for trial, it was also duty-bound to restore my bail in line with the pronouncement of the apex court. ‘’But that did not happen. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine and that is: the Court connived with the federal government to continue my detention in violation of Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution. ‘’On September 24, 2024, I decided that I have had enough of taking my chances at getting justice from a judge that, in June 2021, sent me to secret police detention without fair hearing, later refused to transfer me to prison to better prepare for my trial and capped it all by refusing to restore my bail and instead ordering an accelerated trial in the face of the reality that I will never get a fair trial whilst detained at the DSS. ‘’These are the major reasons that compelled me to request recusal of the judge and having consented to it, she proceeded to make an order removing herself from my case. That order was never challenged on appeal; thus it remains extant to this day. ‘’But instead of the Chief judge of the Federal High Court to do the lawful thing by assigning my case to another judge, he connived with the federal government to eat crow and send my case to a judge that stands recused by a valid order. ‘’To conclude this open letter, let me make it clear that it should in no way be construed to mean that there are no decent judges in Nigeria that can be trusted to deliver even-handed justice in my case. That is not the issue. ‘’Instead, the issue is that my case is deliberately being shielded from judges and justices that are deemed to be committed to doing justice, even when it means that the federal government must lose. ‘’Be that as it may, if it will take the rest of my life in detention to produce me before a proper and impartial court, so be it. But let me say this for the world to know: I will not succumb to any trial conducted by any judge or court whose jurisdiction does not pass constitutional muster. Not now, not ever.’’

By Henry Ojelu

The decade-long trial of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu finally reached a dramatic climax last week when the Federal High Court, Abuja, convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment on terrorism charges—closing one of the most contentious criminal proceedings in Nigeria’s recent history.

For 10 years, the case meandered from judge to judge, punctuated by arrests, releases, flight from the country, extradition controversies, walkouts by lawyers, courtroom tensions, and political undercurrents that made every hearing a national spectacle.

The culminating judgment by Justice James Omotosho arrived with unusual speed – typed, signed and released to both sides within 24 hours—instantly triggering fierce debate about its substance, process, and broader implications for justice, federalism and national security.

For some legal analysts, the court merely applied the statute to the evidence; for others, the judgment sat uneasily on shaky legal foundations. In this edition, Vanguard Law & Human Rights spoke to four senior lawyers whose sharply contrasting positions reveal a profession split between those who hail the judgment as a triumph of due process and those who insist it is a nullity waiting to be overturned on appeal.

Judge went extra mile for fair hearing — Edun, SAN

For Wale Edun, SAN, the verdict was the predictable outcome of a trial in which, in his view, no judge in recent memory gave a defendant more latitude to defend himself. The former Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Welfare Secretary described the case as a “10-year legal odyssey that tested the endurance of Nigeria’s judicial machinery.”

Edun praised Justice Omotosho’s “dexterity and probity,” insisting that the court demonstrated uncommon diligence. He said: “The case took 10 years to conclude after going around several judges until it was transferred to the Court of Justice J.K. Omotosho. The trial judge granted accelerated hearing and concluded the case in less than a year. I commend the case-management style and judicial probity of the court.”

To Edun, fairness was the central theme. According to him: “The prosecution witnesses were cross-examined. Defence counsel—led initially by the eminent silk, Kanu Agabi—had every opportunity. After the defence chose to terminate counsel’s services, the judge adjourned several times for the defendant to rethink his desire to represent himself.”

He pointed out that the court even attempted to cushion the risk of self-representation: “The judge offered to deploy counsel from the Legal Aid Council, but the defendant rejected it. The court practically pleaded with him to open his defence. No reasonable person who followed the proceedings can say he was not given a fair chance.”

He added that the legal consequences of refusing to defend oneself are always severe:

“It is settled law that where a defendant fails to open his defence, he is deemed to have rested his case on the prosecution. It is a dangerous strategy. Justice is a three-way traffic: the defendant, the prosecution and the public.”

Edun emphasised that courts cannot be swayed by politics: “A trial judge is never concerned about the politics of the case. His only duty is to determine whether the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Period!”

But he pivoted sharply to politics in his closing reflections, urging federal authorities to embrace reconciliation: “This does not detract from the Prerogative of Mercy Committee’s power to recommend pardon. Convicted looters have been pardoned. We need healing now.”

He framed Kanu’s case as a symptom of a deeper national malaise—one rooted in structural imbalance, divisive policies, and failures of leadership. “Nigeria is a federation of more than 300 tribes. We still operate quota system and federal character 65 years after independence. These policies have replaced merit with mediocrity.”

Edun warned that violence cannot drive reform: “No government will allow violence or threats that can cause breakdown of law and order. Look at Libya, Sudan, Syria. Nigeria cannot afford security collapse.”

His prescription is political restructuring, empowered governors, state police and better leadership selection: “Nigeria is too big to be controlled from Abuja. The people must agitate through their leaders for devolution. Governors must stop worshipping Abuja. Nigerians must stop electing jokers. State Police is a must.”

Kanu should never have defended himself—Opara, SAN

Victor Opara, SAN, in his assessment of the judgment, adopts a middle ground. He opted not to attack the judgment’s substance but questions the integrity of the procedure—particularly Kanu’s decision to sack his legal team and attempt self-representation.

For Opara, terrorism cases demand high evidential thresholds and professional defence. He said: “What surprised me was that Kanu dismissed a very competent legal team, in my view, and chose to defend himself. Defending yourself in a criminal trial requires forensic skill, emotional intelligence, and deep legal knowledge. Unfortunately, we did not see him present witnesses or counter the prosecution’s evidence. When that happens, the judge has little room—if the prosecution’s evidence is unchallenged, it stands.

“Having said that, it is important to interrogate the procedure. I do not believe a defendant facing an offence that carries life imprisonment or death should ever defend himself. Section 349 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, especially subsection (6), clearly states that a defendant facing a capital offence shall not defend himself.

In such cases, the judge should assign counsel—either through Legal Aid or a “dock brief.” I do not know whether that was done here. Once his lawyers withdrew, he had no representation, and in my view, the judge should have assigned counsel from Legal Aid, the Ministry of Justice, or even the Nigerian Bar Associatio, NBA. The sanctity of the court must be preserved. A defendant without legal training should not be allowed to defend himself in such serious matters.

‘The law states that a defendant facing capital charges shall not be allowed to represent himself. It is a mandatory duty imposed by law, not a discretionary matter. However, even if counsel is assigned and the defendant rejects the lawyer, another question arises: does his constitutional right to counsel of his choice override that provision? These are issues for the appellate court. Again, I do not know if the judge gave him the statutory opportunity.

“From what I saw, Kanu’s case was not hopeless. There were many possible defences. I would have preferred that his very experienced lawyers handled the case using their forensic skill. I do not support the strategy of dismissing them.

Regarding appellate prospects, Opara’s answer was measured: “Does he stand a chance on appeal? It depends on the grounds. The Court of Appeal is not a charity home. If he has solid grounds, the court will consider them.”

Judgment built on nothing cannot stand — Ufeli

Human-rights lawyer, Evans Ufeli offers the sharpest criticism of the verdict, describing it as legally defective on three foundational grounds: absence of a valid statutory basis, insufficient evidence, and procedural irregularities.

For Ufeli, the first and most damning flaw is the legal foundation of the charge. He said: “The first and most elemental objection is statutory. Criminal law proceeds on the maxim: nullum crimen sine lege; no crime without law – and its corollary that a court may not convict on a basis that lacks a current legal foundation. The Latin adage, ex nihilo nihil fit, “nothing comes from nothing,” captures this point with equal force: a conviction cannot validly derive from a legal vacuum.

“If the Terrorism Act under which the accused was charged had been repealed prior to or at the time of prosecution, the court’s exercise of criminal jurisdiction in reliance upon that Act would have been without legal underpinning.

“The consequences are not merely technical. A law is the predicate that defines the prohibited conduct, prescribes requisite mens rea, and establishes the penalties. Absent that predicate, there is no correctly defined offence to try, no statutory elements to prove, and no lawful sanction to impose.

“There are further legal nuances: the temporal relationship between repeal and the alleged offending conduct can matter, and the legislature’s intention regarding retrospective application will determine whether prior conduct remains punishable.

“But those distinctions only reinforce the central point: the court must first determine whether the statute remained in force and applicable before it can proceed to adjudicate guilt under that statute. If a court ignores or misapprehends that statutory question, any conviction it pronounces risks being void for want of a legal foundation.

The second pillar of his critique is evidential weakness: “No weapon was tendered. There was no direct proof tying him to violent acts. Allegations of terrorism require concrete links to acts of violence, not mere speech or political agitation.”

He emphasizes that circumstantial evidence must be overwhelming: “Uncorroborated assertions or reliance on dangerous speeches without nexus to violent acts cannot meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Third—and in Ufeli’s view most alarming—is the court’s refusal to hear a jurisdictional objection: “Jurisdiction goes to the very heart of adjudication. If a court ignores a valid objection to jurisdiction, everything it does afterwards is a nullity.”

Elaborating, he said: “The court must first determine whether the statute was in force and whether it had jurisdiction. To proceed without resolving these questions is to invert the hierarchy of the rule of law.”

Ufeli insists that the judgment is fatally vulnerable: “Taken together—absent statutory foundation, insufficient proof, and failure to entertain jurisdictional objection—the conviction is constitutionally and legally defective.”

As for the appellate prospects, Ufeli opined thus: “In such circumstances, the conviction should be set aside or remitted for fresh trial after resolving the threshold issues.” He warns that the implications go beyond Kanu saying: “If courts allow convictions where statutory basis is doubtful or evidential threshold unmet, they erode criminal protections. No conviction should be built on nothing.”

It was compromised sentence — Ojo

Lagos-based public law expert, Mr. Gbenga Ojo, sees the verdict through a different lens. He describes it bluntly as a “policy judgment—compromised but necessary.”

He argued that the severity of terrorism charges ordinarily carries the death penalty, and that what happened in the Kanu case was a carefully calibrated legal-political balancing act: “It seems like a policy judgment. The penalty for treason or treason-related offences is death. The idea is to work out political solutions—like prerogative of mercy—and release him after,” Ojo said.

Ojo believes convicting Kanu was important to avoid setting a bad precedent. “If Kanu had been released without full trial, that would have been a very bad example. It would embolden other separatists to think trials can always be compromised.”

The law lecturer also threw his support for a fusion of firmness and mercy. He said: “Let the judiciary do its work. Any similar offenders will go through the rigours of trial and punishment. But the government should temper justice with mercy and work out political solutions with stakeholders among Igbo leaders.”

Ojo described the overall outcome as “a welcome development”, arguing that it protects the integrity of the judicial process while keeping the door open for political reconciliation.

The post Nnamdi Kanu: Senior lawyers differ on conviction, life imprisonment appeared first on Vanguard News.

Read More