We express deep concern over the ruling delivered by Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in the ongoing case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The court’s declaration that Kanu “has to explain certain things in his broadcasts” departs alarmingly from established legal principles and reveals a troubling pattern of executive interference in Nigeria’s judiciary.
Misapplication of the Law on No-Case Submission
Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, a no-case submission requires the court to evaluate both the charges and the quality of the prosecution’s evidence. Justice Omotosho’s ruling, however, focused narrowly on the charge sheet while disregarding the prosecution’s evidence, which had collapsed under cross-examination due to contradictions and inconsistencies.
Supreme Court precedents make it clear: when prosecution witnesses are discredited, a trial court must acknowledge that the case has failed. By sidestepping this obligation, Justice Omotosho undermined the integrity of judicial scrutiny.
Reliance on a Repealed Law
Equally disturbing is the court’s silence on the prosecution’s reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013. Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 requires courts to take judicial notice of repealed laws. Any prosecution anchored on a defunct statute is a legal nullity.
By allowing this case to proceed under a repealed law, the ruling calls into question the court’s jurisdiction and its fidelity to the rule of law.
Violation of Constitutional Rights
The Nigerian Constitution, under Section 36(11), guarantees that no defendant shall be compelled to testify against himself. Yet, Justice Omotosho’s ruling effectively shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution onto the accused, despite the absence of credible investigation reports or substantive evidence.
This dangerous precedent erodes fair trial guarantees and weakens constitutional protections for all Nigerians.
Judiciary as an Arm of the Executive
Taken together, these legal failures suggest a disturbing trend: the judiciary in Abuja increasingly appears to serve political interests rather than impartial justice. Courts are meant to be guardians of the Constitution, not instruments of executive power.
Such rulings corrode public confidence in Nigeria’s judicial system and undermine the international credibility of the country’s commitment to due process.
Call to Action
We call for urgent action from all stakeholders:
- The Court of Appeal must review and overturn Justice Omotosho’s ruling to preserve judicial integrity.
- The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and National Judicial Council (NJC) must investigate this recurring departure from legal standards in politically sensitive cases.
- The international community and human rights organizations should intensify monitoring of Nigeria’s compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Conclusion
A trial built on a repealed law, sustained by discredited evidence, and demanding that the accused disprove the prosecution’s case is not justice—it is political theatre masquerading as law. Justice Omotosho’s ruling does not advance fairness; it entrenches persecution.
Signed,
Barrister Christopher Chidera
Human Rights Lawyer & Public Advocate
