‘Prosecution from the bench’ – Defence team faults judge in Nnamdi Kanu’s trial

The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium has described the trial of the jailed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, leader as prosecution from the bench.

The consortium, a group of lawyers fighting for Kanu’s freedom, made the assertion in a statement released on Thursday by a lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi.

Ifedi said the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, defied mandatory supreme court commands in arriving at the conviction of the agitator.

“When a trial judge actively selects which statutory commands to obey and which to ignore in order to preserve a politically charged prosecution, that is not an innocent oversight — that is prosecution from the bench,” the lawyer stated.

The lawyer added that provisions of the Evidence Act were wilfully overlooked in the proceedings leading to Kanu’s conviction.

He said, “Justice James Omotosho cannot claim ignorance, oversight, or unfamiliarity with the Evidence Act. His own judgment proves he knew the law, understood its mandatory duty, and knew precisely how to deploy it as a legal weapon.”

Ifedi cited page 34 of the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu), where Justice Omotosho stated: “This Court is bound to take judicial notice of the laws of the land as well as gazetted orders and rulings of courts of coordinate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Consequently, this Court takes judicial notice of the Order of this Court delivered by Kafarati, J. (as he then was) in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/878/2017 between Attorney General of the Federation v. Indigenous People of Biafra, delivered on 20th September 2017, proscribing the Defendant’s organization as a terrorist group.”

According to him, “The trial judge admitted in black and white that the statutory command was mandatory. He weaponised Section 122 to import Justice Kafarati’s ex parte proscription order into the trial to convict the defendant. Yet, when the exact same Section 122 was invoked by the defense to challenge the legal foundation of the charge sheet itself, the court suddenly went blind and mute.”

Ifedi further alleged that the trial judge defied a binding Supreme Court pronouncement that Nigerian courts are under an inescapable duty to take judicial notice of primary statutory enactments, including repealed laws.

“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, Justice Omotosho had zero legal room to maneuver. He was bound by the statute. He was bound by Supreme Court precedent. He had already acknowledged the rule on page 34 of his judgment. Ignoring this binding obligation when it favored the defendant was an act of open judicial defiance,” Ifedi declared.

The lawyer in the same vein alleged that the trial judge took advantage of Kanu “an unrepresented defendant”, during the proceedings of November 4 and 5, 2025.

According to him, Kanu while standing in the dock without counsel, pleaded with the judge to take judicial notice of the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and the non-existence of Criminal Code Act C-45.

However, Ifedi stated that instead of stopping the trial to perform the mandatory statutory duty, “which would have instantly exposed that the charge sheet was built on dead laws, Justice Omotosho brushed the application aside, forced the trial forward, and enticed the defendant to proceed under a false premise”.

According to Ifedi, “To refuse to take judicial notice when invoked by an unrepresented defendant, only to force him to trial on repealed laws, constitutes a total failure of fair hearing and a judicial ambush.”

Alleging double standards in the way the  trial was conducted, the Mazi Nnamdi Global Legal Consortium decried what it described as selective obedience to the Evidence Act.

Ifedi stated, “The certified trial record exposes an irreconcilable double standard in how Section 122 was deployed. When Section 122 assisted the State, it was an absolute mandatory command (“This court is bound”). When Section 122 demonstrated that the charges were legally dead, it was ignored and replaced with a post-hoc assumption. That is not neutral adjudication. That is railroading under the color of judicial authority.”