According to him, Justice Omotosho ignored repeated reminders from Kanu himself, who asked the court: “Show me the law.”
A United Kingdom-based human rights lawyer, Jude Njoku Jude, has accused Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, of grossly mishandling the trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, describing the proceedings as rife with legal errors and constitutional violations.
In a detailed statement, Jude outlined a series of “legal missiles” aimed at challenging Kanu’s conviction, claiming that the trial was conducted under repealed laws, without jurisdiction, and in violation of both domestic and international law.
Convicted Under a Repealed Law
Jude alleged that Kanu was convicted under a law that had already been repealed; the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, while the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 was in force.
“Section 36(12) of the Constitution forbids conviction unless the offence is defined by a law in force at trial and conviction,” Jude stated.
According to him, Justice Omotosho ignored repeated reminders from Kanu himself, who asked the court: “Show me the law.”
Jude argued that the conviction was entered without jurisdiction, rendering it void from inception, and that retrial is barred because the State prosecuted under a dead law when a living one existed.
Judicial Contradictions
The lawyer further claimed that Justice Omotosho initially acknowledged that conviction under a repealed law was illegal, yet proceeded to convict Kanu.
“Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a court cannot accept a legal position and later act against it,” Jude explained.
He described the proceedings as a “constitutional ambush” and argued that the conviction is legally dishonest.
Jurisdictional Failures
Jude also highlighted that the court refused to properly determine whether it had legal authority to try Kanu, despite repeated challenges.
Citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, he said, “Jurisdiction must exist before a court acts. Justice Omotosho deferred jurisdiction to judgment, but a court cannot postpone the source of its own authority. Every step thereafter is legally null.”
Abduction and International Law Violations
A significant portion of Jude’s critique focused on Kanu’s rendition from Kenya.
“Kanu was abducted, not extradited. No Kenyan court approved his transfer,” he stated.
He added that Nigerian courts cannot benefit from illegal abduction to secure convictions. According to Jude, international law and the African Charter forbid arbitrary arrests and transfers, which Justice Omotosho ignored.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Issues
The lawyer also challenged the court’s authority to try Kanu for alleged broadcasts made in the United Kingdom.
He explained that the prosecution failed to prove that Kanu’s alleged broadcasts were received in Nigeria or that they were criminal under UK law, a requirement under the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act for extraterritorial offences. “Jurisdiction was assumed, not earned,” Jude said.
Cumulative Legal Failures
Jude described at least 17 major legal failings, referred to as “missiles”, in Kanu’s trial, including reliance on repealed laws, judicial contradiction, lack of jurisdiction, failure to respect international law, and forcing Kanu to defend himself under legally impossible circumstances.
“The trial became a punitive theatre. Acquittal is mandatory,” he concluded.
Jude Njoku Jude, speaking from the UK, said the legal team is quietly assembling challenges aimed at overturning Kanu’s conviction.
“This is only the beginning,” he stated. “We are committed to holding the judiciary accountable and ensuring that the rule of law prevails.”
The statement has reignited debate over Kanu’s trial, which has been a focal point of national and international attention, particularly concerning the legality of his rendition and the adherence of Nigerian courts to constitutional and international standards.