Nnamdi Kanu: From Agitation to Life Imprisonment
Nnamdi Kanu: From Agitation to Life Imprisonment
After a ten-year intricate legal battle, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) which has been agitating for the actualisation of the state of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, was convicted for charges bordering on terrorism last Thursday, November 20, 2025 and sentenced to Life Imprisonment by Hon. Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division. Was life imprisonment the expected outcome of the case? Would the judgement have been different if Nnamdi Kanu hadn’t decided to take over his defence himself, which he refused to open, insisting that he wasn’t charged under any known law? What options are left to the convicted IPOB leader? These and many more questions are the subject of this Discourse by Aikhunegbe Anthony Malik, SAN; Kunle Edun, SAN; P.D. Pius; Ifeanyi Ejiofor; Major Ben Aburime (Rtd) and Marx Ikongbeh
‘Show Me the Law’: The Saga of Kanu’s Trial
Aikhunegbe Anthony Malik, SAN
Introduction
The just concluded trial and conviction of Nnamdi Kanu at the Federal High Court qualifies, by all parameters, as a saga of a sort. Like every other saga, it was not without the usual accompaniments of variegated interpretations and narratives of the factual realities, conspiracy theories and the residue of the old wives tales.
The judgement [proceedings] that ordinarily ought to signpost the climax of the entire saga and the denouement thereof and, as well, quench the thirst for justice, soon became the talking point for further rabble rousing. Thus, from nowhere, the refrain of “show me the law” and “you don’t know the law…”, rent the air of solemnity and sacrosanctity that normally characterise the climate of court proceedings, was made to breathe the hollow airs of indecorum and ordinariness as if it was another town hall platform for the resolution of intra clan disputes. It is, therefore, the “show me the law” byword from the proceedings, which has now become the talking point for both the mischief makers and the genuinely ignorant folks out there that has compelled this intervention.
Clarification
From the outset, I wish to asseverate that in offering this clarification, I will resist every temptation to be drawn into the groove of the gossip mill and the conspiracy theories regarding allegations not borne out of facts, but etched only on sheer perceptions. In fidelity with this self admonition, I will disregard all such mendacious and tendentious suggestions or narratives in the public space, that the judgement delivered Omotosho, J. of the Federal High Court was written by some faceless persons, but only handed to his Lordship to read or apply in court. How disingenuous can anyone be?
It does not require much efforts to understand that such vicious allegation and the buy-in to the “show me the law” refrain currently being held on to, as talking points, are the orchestration of the rabble rousers [to which, it does appears, even Nnamdi Kanu himself is a victim of], woven to muddy up the stream of justice by reactionary forces. To them, Nnamdi Kanu was unfairly prosecuted, denied fair trial, incorrectly found guilty, wrongly convicted and unjustifiably sentenced.
To the category of genuinely ignorant persons whose imagination of judicial proceedings is not anything different from their village meetings, where there are little or no rules of procedures regulating the conduct of meetings, but as the chairman or elders in council may decide at their whims, I offer my clarifications: now, here is the law.
Long before the commencement of the trial, there was a procedure Nnamdi Kanu went through. It is called arraignment. In it, all the 7 counts in the charge under which he was impleaded in court were individually read to him, one after another, alongside the law alleged to have been violated thereby. After each count was read out to him, he was asked whether he understood same. Unequivocally, he answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, his arraignment crystallised, when he entered a plea of “not guilty” to the entire charge. At this point, the obligation of the prosecution to lead compelling evidence, pointing ineluctably to the guilt of Mr Kanu in relation to the allegations embodied in the charge, kicked in. As has now been established vide the court’s judgement, the prosecution discharged this burden through the several witnesses it fielded, and who gave viva voce evidence anchored on documentary proof.
Many of those criticising the Judge today may be surprised to learn here that, Nnamdi Kanu, actually articulated his defence indirectly through his Lawyers vide the legal mechanism of cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses with the aim of discrediting their testimonies and eliciting evidence therefrom, in support of his case. Thus, even as it may appear that Nnamdi Kanu elected not to defend the charge, his acceptance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, is in itself a form of defence. At the conclusion of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution closed its case to await Nnamdi Kanu’s defence.
At this stage of the trial, Nnamdi Kanu was left with the option of entering his defence and follow the same procedure as the prosecution or raise what is called a No Case Submission, which is essentially a short circuited procedure of defence suggesting that the entire evidence as led thus far by the prosecution were either not sufficient to convict him, or were so discredited under cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal or court could rely on them to convict him. Interestingly, Nnamdi Kanu opted for the latter, warranting a ruling by the court, which ruling came out unfavourable to him, to the effect that contrary to his application for a No Case Submission, the entirety of the evidence as led by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie (on the surface) case against him requiring further explanation or refutal in defence.The court, thereafter and expectedly, offered Mr Kanu the opportunity to put up a [further] defence. At this stage, Nnamdi Kanu decided to sack his defence team, opting to defend himself- a right that the law guarantees him – despite the Judge’s admonition to him to allow his Lawyer do so. Thus, for six weeks, the court indulged Nnamdi Kanu with several adjournments, just to enable him offer a defence to the charge. For reasons within the exclusive preserve of the Defendant, he elected not to. Thereafter, the court was left with no further option than to foreclose him and adjourn for judgement.
On judgement day, and while the judgement was being read, Nnamdi Kanu chose to apply to the court to allow him come up with a Final Written Address, which is nothing other than the application of the law to the summation of all the evidence led, from the perspectives of the respective Counsel on each side. At this stage, only an application for arrest of judgement may fly. Fortunately or unfortunately, the practice of arresting a court’s judgement has been roundly deprecated by the appellate courts. Betwixt and between, he was seen interjecting the court proceedings with the refrain, “show me the law”, “you don’t know law” and “Omotosho, you are reading rubbish…”.
Conclusion
The above synopsis of what transpired in the trial and the subsequent ripples out there, communicate veritable lessons to litigants that the court of law is sui generis in its operation and procedures. Over time, the wall of the court has been fortified against emotions and sentiments of any kind, no matter how convinced one may be of his cause. To the question, where is the law? the surrounding facts in the entire trial saga already beg the question with an answer, or how else could the court have shown the law to a person to whom the charge was read and who indicated that he understood the charge, pleaded not guilty and even went ahead to cross-examine the witnesses called by the opposing side?
You, be the Judge!
Aikhunegbe Anthony Malik, SAN
Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction: Was Justice Served?
Kunle Edun, SAN
The case of the Federal Republic of Nigeria v Nnamdi Kanu, Charge No. FHC/AB/CR/383/2015 has been an interesting case The case took 10 years to conclude, after going around several Judges of the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, until it was recently transferred to the Court of Honourable Justice J.K. Omotosho. The trial Judge granted accelerated hearing, and concluded the case in less than a year. I commend the dexterity, case management style and judicial probity of the trial Judge to every other Judicial officer in Nigeria. The Judgement of the Court was released on the day it was delivered, which is not the norm in our courts. Even judgements of the Supreme Court, take a longer time for the parties to obtain.
Was Justice Served?
The issue of whether justice was served, can only be considered from the prism of a reasonable and objective man who followed the proceedings. It was a criminal trial. The Prosecution witnesses testified and were cross-examined by the Defence Counsel, then led by the eminent silk, Kanu Agabi, SAN who had in his team other Senior Advocates of Nigeria. The Defence was given the opportunity to make a no-case submission after the prosecution closed its case. Subsequently, the Defendant exercised his right to terminate the brief of the eminent Counsel that were conducting his legal representation.
The trial Judge adjourned the matter several times, to enable the Defendant to do wider consultation on his intention to represent himself. The trial Judge offered to deploy a Counsel from the Legal Aid Council to represent him, but it was not accepted by the Defendant. Several opportunities were given to the Defendant to open his defence; the trial Judge practically pleaded with him to open his defence. I do not think that any reasonable person conversant with the proceedings, will say that the trial Judge did not give the Defendant a fair chance to prove his innocence. Many Judges wouldn’t go the length the trial court went, in ensuring that the Defendant was availed all opportunity to put his defence forward. It is a settled principle of law that, when a Defendant fails to open his defence, automatically he will be held to have rested his defence on the case of the Prosecution and that is a very dangerous strategy to adopt by any Defendant.
Justice as we all know, is a three-way-traffic. The Judge must always consider the interest of the Defendant, the Prosecution and the public; So, how each of these will see justice is what the trial Court must balance. To be too fair to just one party, might be considered as an injustice to the others. The duty of the Court is to strike a balance that will achieve fairness to all.
A trial Judge is never concerned about the politics of the case he is handling. In fact, his eyes and ears are closed to the politics of a case and the social media. His only duty is to determine, as in the instant case, whether the Prosecution has led evidence beyond reasonable doubt implicating the Defendant in the charge against him. Period. This does not detract from the fact that the Prerogative of Mercy Committee of Federal Government cannot, through the instrumentality of State Pardon, recommend to the National Council of State chaired by the President, Federal Government of Nigeria to exercise its powers and grant the Defendant a pardon. Convicted looters of public treasury have been granted pardon, even without returning the money they stole.
Rumours that Hon. Justice Omotosho J. didn’t Write the Judgment?
I was not a Counsel in the case. However, any person that has appeared before Hon. Justice Omotosho and understand his pattern and style of writing judgements, should be able to know if he didn’t write the judgement . In the absence of any credible evidence that My Lord didn’t write the Judgement, the Judgment of the Court being a public document, it enjoys a strong presumption of regularity. We should give our Judges some respect.
Reading the judgement in this case, I observed that there were some authorities and reasoning reached by the trial Judge that did not depart from his position in the earlier cases that he delivered judgement in, and other cases that he conducted even before he became a Judge of the Federal High Court.
There are similarities in the authorities he cited and opinion rendered on specific points in the present judgement with earlier judgements. Those that are academically-minded should look at Page 35 of the judgement in FRN v NNAMDI KANU, Justice J.K. Omotosho cited the case of NIMR v AKIN-OLUGBADE & ORS (2025) LPELR-80313(SC), HABU v SULE & ORS (2024) LPELR-63002(SC). These two cases were also cited at page 17 in his earlier judgement in Suit No.: FHC/PH/CS/51/2025 Belema Briggs & Ors. v President, FRN delivered on the 2nd of October, 2025. Also cited at pages 12 and 13 in the judgement delivered in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/856/2016: Dr Ted Iseghohi Edwards v FGN & Ors, delivered on the 3rd of October, 2025. The same cases were also cited at page 15 in the judgement in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/133/2025: Techico Resource Solutions Limited v VFD Microfinance Bank Ltd delivered on the 3rd of October, 2025. And also cited in the Ruling delivered on the 26th of September, 2025 on the No Case submission made by Nnamdi Kanu.
At page 36 of the judgement delivered against Nnamdi Kanu, Honourable Justice J.K.Omotosho also cited the case MFA v Inongha (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt.1397) 343 at 375 which my Lord relied on in the earlier judgements he delivered in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/1728/2023 BMO Central Park Abuja Ltd v National Inland Waterways Authority delivered on the 3rd day of October, 2024 at page 36 thereof; see also page 33 of the earlier judgement in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1458/2024: Moses Gamzhi Chiroma v National Judicial Council delivered on the 21st day of May, 2025. I found out that Honourable Justice Omotosho participated in the case of Segun Ogunsanya v State (2011) 12 NWLR (PT. 1261) 401 from the trial stage to the Supreme Court when he was a Deputy Director of Public Prosecution with the Ogun State Ministry of Justice. My Lord cited this particular case in the judgement in the Nnamdi Kanu’s case; Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/478/2024 Rt. Hon. Comrade Philip Shaibu v The Inspector General of Police delivered on the 17th of July, 2024 (pg. 48); Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1386/2021: Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights Agenda v National Broadcasting Commission delivered on the 23rd of November, 2023 (pg. 24). There are several instances of other similar cases and reasoning in the Nnamdi Kanu’s judgement and earlier judgements that he delivered. The trial Judge is well-read, and I think it will be an insult to his personality to ascribe the writing of the judgement to another person.
Lessons for IPOB and other Ethnic Agitators? What Implication for the Nigerian polity?
Nigeria is a Federation of more than 300 different tribes, joined together by Britain without the consent of the natives being sought. 300 tribes with different cultures, orientation and reasoning. Sir Henry Willinks recognised the diversity of the country and the need for official policy to protect the rights of the minority tribes, hence, the Willinks Commission was set up. There are now several laws that passed by the National Assembly that guarantee the protection of the rights of every Nigeria. Section 42 of Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, guarantees every Nigerian from official discriminatory policies, actions and practices. Therefore, I may say that in terms of laws, we have enough to protect and give every Nigerian a sense of belonging. But, is that enough?
The problem has always been with the manner in which these laws are being implemented. I see no reason why we should still be having quota system for admission into Unity Schools, and Federal character in employment into public offices and sharing of offices; more than 65 years after attaining independence. Are we really moving backward or going forward? These policies have been abused and used to replace merit, competence, integrity and transparency with mediocrity, impunity and misfits in sensitive positions of power. Merit has now been sacrificed. This may be the reason why the country is still under-developed, in spite of the huge natural and human resources. Trump just called Nigeria a disgraced country. We have a duty to prove Trump wrong, by doing the right thing and to stop the agitations by the various groups.
However, resorting to violence and threats that will cause a breakdown of law and order, should not be encouraged in any form. With what is happening in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria and other failing countries, Nigeria cannot afford a security breakdown. It will overwhelm Africa. Therefore, the people, through their political, traditional and religious leaders must continue to agitate for devolution of both political and economic power. Nigeria is too big, to be controlled every time from Abuja. The Governors must stop shamelessly worshipping Abuja, and start acting as Governors. Nigerians must stop electing jokers and criminals, into public offices. State Police is a must, to stop the increasing wave of insecurity, since it is obvious that the Federal Government is overwhelmed.
Kunle Edun, SAN, former NBA National Publicity Secretary, Warri, Delta State
Show Me the Law! Simplification of Issues in Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction
P. D. Pius
There is no doubt that the Defendant, Nnamdi Kanu, who is now a convict, repeatedly kept challenging the court, court officials, prosecutors, security men and media to show him the law upon which he was being tried on. He appears to suggest that there is no existing law upon which he can be tried, since the Terrorism Law upon which his charges were drafted has been repealed. Is he correct? Let me simplify this as ABC.
Familiarity With the Law is Crucial
If you commit an offence in 1970, you will be charged under the law that existed in 1970. The Government cannot charge you under a law made in 2022. This is because, criminal law does not bend backward. In this case, the Terrorism Law that was in existence at the time Nnamdi Kanu committed the offences, is the 2013 law. This means that even though the law was repealed or changed in 2022, he has to be tried under the 2013 law that was in existence. He has to stand trial based on the law that existed at the time of the offence, not the current law that did not exist at the time of the offence.
Interestingly, Section 98 of the 2022 Terrorism Law mentioned that all charges or cases that were already going on under the 2013 law shall not be affected by 2022 law, but shall continue normally. What should be clarified is this, whenever you are standing trial, you must be familiar with the procedure of a court case, or how cases are conducted in court.
You cannot ask the Judge or Clerks or Prosecutors or media, to show you the law upon which you are tried in every court sitting. While the Prosecutor will, at the beginning of the case state in the charge sheet the law upon which you are tried, he is not obligated to keep telling you on each day of the sitting that this is the law. As for the Judge, his duty is to listen to both sides and their witnesses. A Judge will only talk or air out his position at the end of the case, after hearing both sides. That is what is called judgement. It is during his judgement that the Judge will tell you whether there is a law or not, upon which you are being tried. If the law exists, you may be convicted; otherwise, you will be set free to go home.
When you don’t have a Lawyer to properly guide you on the procedure in court, you may shortchange yourself by always asking where is the law during court sittings, instead of planning your defence or calling witnesses in your defence. Remember that, court sittings are not a shouting match. You don’t even need to raise your voice. You can win your cases without raising your voice, or talking back at the opponent. Everyone will be given time, to make his/her point fairly (right to fair hearing).
In this case, the convict had a chance of walking free, if he had stuck with the strategy of his eminent and experienced Lawyers. I have read the certified true copy of the judgement. I saw the kind of questions that the defence Lawyers asked the prosecution witnesses, before the Lawyers were fired. I am very convinced that they had laid a foundation for a defence, that if they were not fired they may have succeeded in calling evidence that may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. For instance, they had established that there were killings in the North and South West that were not as a result of the Defendant/Convict’s act. One of the witnesses admitted that it was the Police that investigated the death of Ahmed Gulak, and not the DSS. The destination may have been that they wanted to establish by calling evidence, that killings in the South East were similarly carried out by criminals just like in the North and South West, and not necessarily because of the enforcement of the sit-at-home command of the Defendant. However, this was not achieved, as the Convict fired all his Lawyers and accepted the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses, that killings in the South East were carried out on his orders against those that violated the sit-at- home order. The death of Ahmed Gulak was one prominent case cited as an example, amongst many others. Unfortunately, there was no Lawyer to properly direct the court, that if it was Police that investigated Ahmed Gulak’s murder, then DSS is not competent to testify about the cause of his death, thereby disconnecting the Defendant from the death of Ahmed Gulak.
Again, a Lawyer is trained to attack and destroy incriminating evidence, that may have been tendered against you. The video evidence, radio interviews and broadcasts of the Defendant that were used as evidence of his inciting violence, were not attacked from the record of the judgement. Of course, it will be difficult for a layman to properly attack these exhibits, if he is not well grounded in the law of evidence. There is a saying amongst trial Lawyers that, “if the facts are against you, argue the law, and if the law is against you, argue the facts, and if both are against you, then bang the table”.
Reliance on Sahara Reporters Interview: Government Blowing Hot and Cold
The interview with Sahara Reporters, was also crucial in the conviction of the Defendant. As I read the judgement I wondered, why is the Government attempting to cripple or take out Sahara Reporters, if they will be relying on their interviews to secure conviction of Terrorist? The Sahara Reporters interview captured the Defendant’s stand, that he wants to achieve Biafra by any means including violence. The Government should not be prosecuting Sahara Reporters as irresponsible media or illegal media, and turned around to rely on their interviews in securing conviction. That is like blowing hot and cold at same time.
Some of these strategies may have assisted the defence. While a Defendant can represent himself, it is a big gamble to do so. There is however, something I find very strange and shocking in the case. Come with me.
Ex-Parte Order Declaring IPOB to be a Terrorist Organisation
There was an ex-parte order declaring the IPOB a terrorist organisation. From the record of the judgement, there is no indication that any IPOB member or Lawyer, or anyone at all, had challenged that ex-parte order, or applied to set it aside or appealed against it. It will be a very bad strategy to say that IPOB is not a terrorist organisation, and at same time, failed to have challenged the ex-parte order declaring them a terrorist organisation. This is because all orders of court must be obeyed, until set aside. Thus, as long as the ex-parte order subsists, anyone who accepts that he is a member of IPOB without more, can get life imprisonment or death penalty. I am still surprised that no evidence was called, to show that the ex-parte order declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation was challenged or appealed against. Well, let me leave it at that.
Different Terrorism Offences in Nigeria
One more point to clarify is that, there are so many different kinds of Terrorism offences in Nigeria. Some attract 20 years imprisonment, some life imprisonment and some attract up to the death sentence, among others. Where a Defendant decides to cooperate and admit his guilt immediately without wasting the time of the court or dragging the government through years of trial before conviction, he may get some reduction in punishment that may be given. Again the prosecutor may, based on available evidence, choose the kind of Terrorism offences he believes he can prove against you. So, two people can do the same act, but, based on available evidence or their decision to go to trial or admit their offence immediately, will likely result in separate kind of charges. It is like Yahoo boys who often plead guilty in EFCC cases that get option of fine, but, those that go through trial getting years of imprisonment if later found guilty after trial.
Note that, trial usually costs the government a lot to secure conviction. In this case, the Government had to go for a skilful, experienced and senior Lawyer, Chief Adeboyega Awomolo, SAN and probably pay for his services to assist them with the prosecution, as they may not be comfortable with an ordinary Lawyer in Ministry of Justice to do handle such an important case properly. These are all factors that will affect the choices, that may further affect the punishment. When you hire a big masquerade, you should expect a big performance.
The convict is very lucky to have been given a life sentence, when his prosecution was done by a distinguished senior Lawyer, while he had no Lawyer at all to defend him. It would have been very strange for a non-Lawyer, to defeat a revered SAN in this trial.
There are many other issues to talk about, but I will stop here and take your reactions or queries.
P. D. Pius, Abuja
Nnamdi Kanu’s Avoidable Ordeal: How Amateur Legal Showmen Led a High-Profile Case into a Judicial Ambush
Ifeanyi Ejiofor ( Kanu’s Former Lawyer )
When Justice Became a Performance: The Tragic Consequence of Turning Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial into Content
I had genuinely intended, out of sheer exhaustion and out of respect for the sensitivity of this moment, to refrain from revisiting this saga. But, the avalanche of calls, messages, and trembling voices from our people has made silence no longer an option. I am therefore, compelled to offer sober introspection, especially as someone who successfully steered this very case for nearly a decade, securing landmark victories, unassailable legal milestones, and enduring a long trail of threats, assassination attempts, and brushes with death. Through all of this, Grace remained my only constant protection.
However, after Thursday’s spectacle, correcting the wild conjectures, poorly manufactured narratives, and brazen misinformation now circulating like a digital epidemic, has become absolutely necessary.
The First Revelation They Won’t Tell You
During the period our team handled this matter, from 2015 to December 2023, up until Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, assumed leadership of the legal team in 2022; we were on the threshold of securing yet another major relief for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, particularly after the Court of Appeal discharged him in 2022. Sustained pressure, strategic diplomacy, and airtight legal manoeuvring had placed us on the verge of another monumental breakthrough.
Regrettably, certain sensitive details of this progress were, perhaps, innocently, disclosed by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to some of these clueless clowns. Rather than support a strategy they barely understood, they seized the information as an opportunity to derail the entire process and treacherously orchestrated a change in the status quo. Consequently, we exited the team, gloriously, and with our integrity intact.
Let Us Speak Plainly
A high-profile, internationally sensitive criminal trial, is not a circus ring. But, once these bloated, delusional entertainers-in-wigs inserted themselves into the process, everything degenerated into a grotesque parody of legal representation. Instead of crafting legal strategy, they crafted Instagram stories. Instead of mastering case law, they mastered camera angles. At every court session, their priority wasn’t research or preparation, it was posing, filming, updating, grandstanding, and “going viral”.
Meanwhile, the accused man’s fate hung by a thread.
The Most Tragic Part of it All
Even after the court explicitly warned that self-representation in a complex constitutional and criminal matter was dangerous, these “consultants” encouraged it, clapping like paid spectators in a village arena.
And So, the Unthinkable Happened
1. A trial that could have been paused, or avoided ab initio, had the proper methodology and engagement being applied.
2. A conviction that could have been prevented.
3. An outcome that was entirely avoidable, yet, allowed to proceed under the guidance of legal lightweights intoxicated by social-media relevance.
They railroaded him, knowingly or unknowingly, into the savage pit of a full criminal trial, fully aware that other lawful avenues existed.
Even while the trial was ongoing, they busied themselves with dishing out falsehoods, half-truths, and misleading “updates” to an unsuspecting public. Every lie told outside the courtroom became a landmine inside the courtroom. Every exaggerated “update”, became a contradiction the prosecution gleefully documented. Every camera stunt, became a professional embarrassment.
And now, instead of remorse, they have resumed their post-trial routine: fresh videos, fresh lies, fresh false hopes, desperate for clicks.
The tragedy continues, because the vulnerable still believe them.
The Greatest Puzzle of All
How did foremost legal minds, globally respected Senior Advocates of Nigeria such as Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, and other erudite members of the Inner Bar; men fully versed in the anatomy of high-wire criminal litigation, become disengaged at the most critical moment of the trial, only for mediocre adventurers to hijack a matter of international significance and reduce it to a TikTok legal carnival?
Who replaces world-class physicians, with herbal storytellers during brain surgery?
Who replaces strategic diplomacy, with reckless grandstanding?
Who replaces law with theatrics?
Only a system already preparing for disaster.
Where We Go from Here
For any meaningful rescue effort by globally respected legal experts, the first task must be to clean up the monumental damage inflicted by these self-advertising jesters. A comprehensive review of methodology, effective engagement, and drastically reduced publicity must precede any intervention. Only then, can a coherent, sophisticated legal and political strategy be fashioned.
This is not the time for comedy.
Not the time for inflated egos.
And, certainly not the time for social-media theatrics.
It is time for soberness.
Time for competence.
Time for real advocacy.
Enough is Enough.
Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, (KSC), Nnamdi Kanu’s former Lawyer
Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial, Conviction and Sentencing: Nigeria and Its Unending Film Productions
Major Ben Aburime (Rtd)
Nigeria appears to be fighting hard to overtake the Nollywood Film Industry in the scripting, production and directing its national movies called incidents. There are various topics I had wanted to write about, before the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu case again overtook my thoughts.
Now, talking about the trending Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, MNK, debacle, my thoughts are simple. First and foremost, I’m aware of the United Nation’s provision that a people shall have the right to seek to breakaway from any union, and be on their own. So, the desire of a majority of tribes and clans desiring a severance from the present-day Nigeria, is not illegal. What may be illegal, is the methodology to achieve that purpose. Amongst what will constitute illegality is resort to armed struggle or acts of terrorism.
We should be careful to dispassionately address the complex issues, leading a largely successful people to want to seek a breakaway. That there has been a systemic marginalisation of the Igbo race since the end of the Nigerian Civil War, is not in dispute.
With the activities of the armed Fulani Herdsmen nationwide, the body language of their leaders while hiding under Islam, with the vexatious and arrogant utterances of the likes of Sheikh Gumi, the disdain for the nation was thinly veiled, thus, birthing the Nnamdi Kanus, Sunday Igbohos and other separatists alike. This was the prevailing situation before the series of Donald Trump tweets changed the narrative. Suddenly, a 10-year of trial has finally and dramatically come to an end, fuelling the narratives.
Nnamdi Kalu was ostensibly tried and convicted for treason. Was his rendition from Kenya, another sovereign country legitimate? I cannot, in clear conscience, say it was, especially coming from a Muhammad Buhari’s notoriety for freighting human cargoes across extra-territorial jurisdictions, Alhaji Umaru Dikko in mind. Can Buhari or his son-in-law, Malami, be said to be acting in the best interest of the nation? That will be difficult to believe, given the fact that Buhari’s eight years in power can only be remembered for the dialogue about RUGA, grazing routes, importation of his Fulani kinsmen from all over the world, and disarming Nigerians before the emergence of the Fulanis armed with state-of-art military arms and hardware. Viewed against this background, one’s sympathy will always be with MNK and those thinking like him. So, his trial and conviction will naturally attract speculations. This area is what I majorly want to interrogate, while still struggling to understand Britain’s silence, given MNK’s dual nationality.
I have heard of several conspiracy theories, about how the judgment was written, Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s 2027 agenda and how he hopes to use MNK as a bargaining chip for the Igbo votes through a possible Presidential pardon and all that.
To me, he, MNK, is convicted for refusing or failing to enter a defence to his case. In law, no breach of rule of law and/or breach of right of fair hearing has occurred, since the court gave him ample opportunity to counter the prosecution’s case, but he freely elected to convert his trial to content creation and display of anger. Since the evidence against him was largely built on his alleged videos and briefings, in this era of open Artificial Intelligence, AI, it would have been possible to discredit the evidence, claiming doctoring, proper custody, animations and simulations, and all that. It would have at least cast some shadow of doubt on the prosecution’s case, but, he didn’t take that route. Perhaps, it was wise that he did not too, because if he had disputed his earlier utterances, it would have only served to demystify him in the eyes of his followers. To that extent, he was wise and smart.
As I said earlier, the case of the prosecution was built majorly on MNK’s videos and press briefings, so that he was lucky to avoid the death penalty. That is the stark reality. He isn’t bigger or greater than the likes of Nelson Mandela and Obafemi Awolowo, two great Lawyers who were convicted and jailed on treason charges, no matter how unfounded. To my mind also, no true Igbo leader really wants him released because of the alleged security threat he poses to that region, following the blind followership he has among the [un]enlightened, just like the Almajaris and Talakawa ko mutanes of the North, especially Kano and old Sokoto areas. Many families who lost loved ones in the Southeast owing to IPOB and ESN/Unknown Gun Men killing them for allegedly being saboteurs, will forever hate Nnamdi Kanu, despite his being a national symbol to some for liberation and freedom. Whether he truly sanctioned those killings, is another question.
While I recognise his right to seek a breakaway from a dysfunctional Nigeria, his alleged methodology is highly most curious. Persuasion and not offer of violence or threat of violence was what the likes of Mahatma Ghandi, a sound Lawyer, employed to unthrone British rule. Martin Luther King Jnr, also gained large followership by strong persuasive and laudable leadership. Violence will always beget violence. We’re he dealing with a military government, he would have been quietly poisoned like Fela Kuti, SM Yar’adua, MKO Abiola, TEC Chiefe, etc, I can guess. This is the sad nature of our country, like it or not.
Lastly, Tinubu doesn’t need him to capture the Southeast; he has already successfully carried out a total and complete State-capture. The NASS and Judiciary are directly under him, or why else will the popular anthem, ‘on your mandate we stand’, be sung at State functions?. He’s also in charge of all the security agencies. President Tinubu personally controls the press, thereby controlling the national dialogue and debate. Has he therefore, a viable opposition come 2027? No. Not Atiku or Peter Obi, even merging together, can constitute a formidable opposition against him as it is today.
The I-must-rule mentality of some Igbos, brings them in direct conflict with other tribes and peoples they continually insult, thereby demarketing the good leaders that region boasts of. So, I think Nnamdi Kanu helped build Nigeria’s case against him, even setting back the march to a Biafra nation.
By the way, I know Hon Justice James K Omotosho very well. He isn’t the type of Judge you can influence. I can freely name several Judges and Magistrates I have no love or respect for, judging by their nature. Not the likes of JK Omotosho, J. It’s apparent that where there’s nothing to put on the opposite side of the scale of justice, a court will act upon the credible evidence before it. That is a principle of law, not perversion.
Major Ben Aburime (Rtd), Lawyer, Lagos
FRN v Nnamdi Kanu: Is there Justice in the Judgement?
Marx Ikongbeh
The judgement of Omotosho J, of the Federal High Court of Nigeria on 20 November, 2025 in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v Nnamdi Kanu, was long awaited. Irrespective of which side of the spectrum, it seems it was expected as it turned out. Those who do not favour Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s style expected this conviction, and feel it is well justified. Those on the other aisle also seemed to have expected the conviction, but feel it is unjustified and a product of bias.
As with most emotive subjects, people approach it with a narrow lens and reject anything that does not suit their taste. A great part of the challenge, is the vast ignorance of how the criminal justice process works. This seems to underline many of the narratives.
Reading the 144-page judgment of Omotosho J, it is easy to appreciate that a judgement was delivered, but was justice delivered? This is another question. It is JS Okutepa, SAN, a senior Lawyer who has recently put a spotlight on the distinction between judgment and justice. The goal of a judgement is to attain justice, but as with any aspirational science, it is not always the mark is obtained.
A judgement is simply the reasoned decision of a Judge after hearing a case in which he finds for one party against the other. But, justice is more elusive. It defies any precise definition. It remains somewhat of an utopian ideal. It can be said to be a state of affairs that perfectly gives all parties involved precisely what they deserve based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Quite a tall order!
To attain justice takes more than a sound and unbiased Judge, it requires the full facts and the whole truth to be before that Judge. Another ingredient is for competent Lawyers who hold their duty as ministers in the temple of justice over and above their partisan allegiance to the client to be on hand to assist the Judge in unravelling the truth and the law relevant to the enquiry.
Looking at the Nnamdi Kanu Judgment, while people aligned with Kanu might scream that there was a failure of justice due to bias of the Judge, that conclusion is difficult to accept when one takes an educated look at the situation. Even if there was a failure of justice here, then the fault lies with the Defendant, who failed to put forward his own version of the facts to enable the Court have a full view of the truth. Secondly, if there was any failure of justice, we can also blame it on the legal or rather “consultant” team (whatever that means) that the defence employed at the end of the case. Their allegiance clearly did not lie as Minister’s in the temple of justice. They rather carried on as content creators in the temple of social media, as Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who was formerly on the team of Lawyers for Kanu stated when he issued a blistering criticism of his former teammates after the judgement.
The strategy for want of a better word, to describe the shambolic approach of the defence to the case at its latter stages was most unfortunate. Assuming the defence was convinced that the Judge was biased against them and they could not secure justice in his Court, the best way to expose bias is to put up a solid case, so that contrasted against the backdrop of the case they have put up, the bias would stand out starkly on appeal. Rather, by needless rigmarole, filibustering, and refusing to present any cogent defence, they risk leaving the impression on appeal that their hue and cry of bias is merely an attempt to hide their lack of a substantive defence.
A close reading of the judgement of Omotosho J, seems to have provided clear answers to the questions that Nnamdi Kanu kept voicing. The judgement showed the law that says Kanu could still be tried under the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, despite the 2022 repeal. Sadly, his “consultants” could not explain this basic law to him. It is easy to imagine that had he retained his team of seasoned legal practitioners, he would not have been left bereft of understanding on this point.
There are many lessons to be learnt, for other ethnic agitators. Agitating for change is not a criminal act. In the judgement, the Court indeed confirmed that under international law, the right to self determination entitles people to agitate for instance for the creation of their own country. However, such agitation must be done in a lawful manner. The judgement set out statements credited to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu which are quite alarming, and clearly cross the line of freedom fighting and into terrorism. Sadly, because the Defendant did not take the opportunity to open his case, the Court was right to accept that he made those utterances as alleged by the prosecution. To expect that he would not be convicted on the state of evidence before the court, is to be extremely unreasonable.
As it stands therefore, even if there was any injustice in this case, then it is the defence who are the perpetrators of that injustice. The role of the “consultants” to the Defendant, is quite reprehensible. They misled him. They tarred the reputation of the legal profession greatly. It is unheard of that a Lawyer whom a client publicly humiliated and told to shut up and further debriefed, would still come back to present himself as a consultant to the same client. It is indeed, below the dignity of the noble profession. May the sun never rise on such a day again.
For Nigeria, the political lesson in this is that a political solution needs to be found. We have walked down this road before. Ralph Uwazuruike of Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) toed this same line. After holding him for trial and degrading his influence, when he was let go, he became an inconsequential bye-figure, so also Asari Dokubo. It seems the continuous fixation of the Government with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, is simply giving him heightened prominence which is what he wants. Perhaps, letting him go will quickly deflate and neutralise him, so that the Government can focus on more pressing challenges.
But, Kanu has a constitutional right to appeal. It is right and actually important he exercises that right, as it will further enrich our jurisprudence on this matter of terrorism as we urge the Government to put its focus on the more pressing terrorist incidents assailing the country. We need strong laws and Judges who can put these terrorists away either by sending them to the gallows preferably, or at least, locking them up in gulag for the rest of their bloodthirsty lives.
Marx Ikongbeh, Legal Practitioner, Abuja
After a ten-year intricate legal battle, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) which has been agitating for the actualisation of the state of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu,
Read more
Hot Source
