07/11/2025
PUBLIC BRIEFING NOTE: TODAY’S EPIC BATTLE BETWEEN MAZI NNAMDI KANU & JUSTICE JAMES OMOTOSHO AT ABUJA FEDERAL HIGH COURT
Issued by: Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq. (reporting from a tense courtroom)
1. Overview of Today’s Shocking Court Developments
The electrifying proceedings in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v Mazi Nnamdi Kanu before Justice James Omotosho took a disturbing turn today, raising serious public concern over the integrity of the judicial process. Multiple actions and pronouncements made by the presiding judge have been widely described as unprecedented, hostile to fair hearing, and blatantly contrary to constitutional standards of criminal trial.
2. Judge Unable to State the Law Under Which Kanu Is Being Tried
In open court today, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu demanded repeatedly that Justice Omotosho identify the specific written law under which he is being tried.
Despite multiple direct requests, Justice Omotosho could not cite any written law creating the alleged offence. Instead of addressing this foundational constitutional requirement, the judge evaded the question.
For the avoidance of doubt, Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides:
“A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law.”
Kanu made it clear to the court that no conviction can stand without a valid written law, and that his faith is on Section 36(12) of the Constitution, not on the judge’s personal views.
3. Judge Failed to Acknowledge the Use of a Repealed Law
Kanu moved a formal motion to expunge his plea from the court record on the grounds that the charge was founded on a repealed law.
Rather than taking judicial notice—something every judge is bound to do under the Evidence Act—Justice Omotosho sidestepped the issue. The court refused to acknowledge that no one can be tried under a repealed statute, a position anchored in Nigerian and international law.
4. Omotosho Blocks Final Written Addresses – A Disturbing First in Nigerian Criminal Trial History
In a move that has stunned legal observers nationwide, Justice Omotosho announced that he does not want any final written addresses from either party.
This is widely viewed as an aberration and a dangerous departure from established criminal procedure. Final written addresses are:
A core component of fair trial
A mandatory stage before judgment
The primary avenue for defendants to challenge evidence and raise points of law
No credible record exists of a trial judge in Nigeria deliberately blocking final addresses in a criminal case. Legal commentators have described this as a judicial ambush.
5. Kanu’s Final Word to the Judge Today
In response to the judge’s position, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu told the court that he does not care what Justice Omotosho says, because the Constitution is supreme:
He stated clearly that Section 36(12) CFRN forbids any conviction without a valid written law, and that no court can override the Constitution.
6. Public Concerns and Implications
Today’s proceedings raise grave questions:
Why is a judge avoiding reference to the law he claims to be applying?
Why refuse written addresses unless the goal is to avoid legal scrutiny of a predetermined outcome?
Why is a court entertaining charges tied to a repealed law?
These developments undermine public trust in the judiciary, and today’s events have intensified public, legal, and international concern over the fairness of this trial.
Conclusion
What transpired in court today is not a normal judicial process. The actions and statements of Justice James Omotosho reflect a troubling pattern of procedural irregularities, disregard for constitutional safeguards, and hostility to fair hearing.
This briefing is being issued in the public interest to ensure transparency and to document the concerning conduct observed in today’s proceedings.
Follow 👉 SirCollins Tv
