Weeks after being discharged by their client, lawyers of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu have returned to challenge Justice James Omotosho, who has insisted on passing judgement on the treason case involving the Biafran separatist.
In an X Twitter message on Monday, the team sent a petition to challenge the Judge’s decision to rule on Kanu who had opted for self-representation and went on to rubbish the case against him as being pegged on no existing Nigerian law.
Titling their “PUBLIC BRIEFING NOTE,” as “Unlawful Denial of Final Address by Justice James Omotosho in the Trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” the message Issued by Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq. for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium said:
“This public briefing note is issued to address a grave procedural and constitutional violation that has occurred in the ongoing trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu before Hon. Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The decision to move toward judgment without permitting the defence to present a Final Written or Oral Address is not only improper — it is unlawful, unconstitutional, and fundamentally void in law. It is not done. No judge in a criminal trial has ever done what Justice Omotosho just did. Was he dreaming when he uttered those words?
“Final Address Is a Constitutional Right — Not a Judicial Favour:
“A Final Address is a mandatory and indispensable stage of every criminal trial in Nigeria. It is the defendant’s last opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s case and guide the court on the law and evidence.
“Denying this stage is a direct breach of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that any trial concluded without granting the right of final address is a nullity, regardless of the evidence.
“Justice James Omotosho’s refusal to allow this stage is therefore wrong in law, unconstitutional, and contrary to binding judicial precedent. And may be a ploy to silence Kanu from placing on record the fact that his trial is a sham, without a valid charge, extant in the corpus juris (body of laws) in Nigeria.
“No Judge Has the Power to Remove a Defendant’s Constitutional Right:
“The right to final address:
“Belongs to the defendant alone,
Can only be waived by the defendant clearly and voluntarily-which is not the case here.
“Cannot be assumed, imposed, or taken away by a judge.
“In this case, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not waive his right.
Any attempt by Hon. Justice Omotosho to proceed as though he did is a legal overreach and an abuse of judicial discretion.
“No judge, regardless of rank or circumstance, has the authority to unilaterally strip a defendant of a constitutional right.
“This Action Violates Judicial Oath and Undermines Justice:
“By sidelining a mandatory component of fair hearing, Hon. Justice James Omotosho acted outside the law and in a manner inconsistent with the oath of office sworn by every judicial officer to:
“Uphold the Constitution,
“Administer justice without fear or favour,
“Follow established legal procedures.
“A judge who elects to disregard constitutional safeguards compromises the integrity of the proceedings and invites legal scrutiny. Judicial power must never be exercised in a manner that suppresses a defendant’s right to be heard.
“Legal Consequences of This Unlawful Action:
“No valid conviction or judicial outcome can stand where the defence was denied its final right of address. The law is settled: once fair hearing is breached, the entire process is void.
“Why the World Must Take This Seriously:
“This is not a procedural oversight. It is a serious judicial violation that:
“Sets a dangerous precedent for all defendants in Nigeria,
“Damages public confidence in the courts,
“Raises legitimate concerns about judicial impartiality,
“Attracts domestic and international attention.
“When a court cuts corners in a politically sensitive trial, it weakens the rule of law and signals that constitutional rights can be discarded at will.
“Conclusion:
“The refusal by Justice James Omotosho to permit Final Address in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is unlawful, unconstitutional, and a violation of fair hearing. It contradicts established judicial authority and undermines the integrity of the trial.
“A credible justice system must uphold the Constitution — not bypass it.”
Signed:
Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq. writing from London United Kingdom
@FederalHigh @njcNig @NigerianBarz @IBAnews @NGRSenate @NGRPresident @StateDept @FCDOGovUK @USinNigeria @UN
