A legal practitioner, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has accused the Federal High Court handling the trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, of conducting what he described as a process aimed at securing a conviction rather than ensuring justice.
In a strongly worded statement that has gained significant public attention, Chidera alleged that the proceedings before Justice James Omotosho were fundamentally flawed and failed to meet the basic standards of a fair trial. According to him, the case was “never truly a trial,” but rather a process allegedly structured in a way that predetermined the outcome.
Allegations of Procedural Irregularities
The lawyer based his claims on entries contained in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the court’s proceedings. He pointed out what he described as conflicting procedural directions allegedly given by the presiding judge at different stages of the trial.
Chidera claimed that on 4 November 2025, the court ruled that certain applications and motions filed by the defence would be addressed during the stage of final written addresses. However, he alleged that on 20 November 2025, the same court stated that all preliminary objections would instead be considered at the point of delivering judgment.
According to the lawyer, this shift in procedure effectively denied the defence an opportunity to fully argue its objections before the court, a situation he described as contradictory and misleading. He argued that such a development undermined the adversarial nature of the judicial process and amounted to what he termed “procedural deceit.”
Chidera further claimed that by deferring key objections until judgment, the defence was left without a meaningful chance to influence the court’s consideration of critical legal issues. In his view, once this decision was taken, the outcome of the case became a foregone conclusion, with the defendant allegedly “marked for conviction” long before judgment.
Constitutional Concerns Raised
In reinforcing his argument, the lawyer cited Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which stipulates that judgments should be delivered only after the conclusion of evidence and the adoption of final addresses by parties. He contended that the alleged procedural changes ran contrary to this constitutional provision and eroded the safeguards meant to protect the right to fair hearing.
Chidera emphasized that his concerns extend beyond the individual case of Nnamdi Kanu, warning that such practices, if left unaddressed, could set a troubling precedent for judicial conduct, due process, and public confidence in the justice system.
Silence From the Court
As of the time of this report, Justice James Omotosho has not issued any public response to the allegations. Similarly, neither the court nor the prosecuting authorities have released an official statement addressing the claims.
Caution and Public Debate
It is important to note that these assertions remain allegations made by Barrister Christopher Chidera. They have not been independently verified, and no judicial body or disciplinary authority has made any formal finding of wrongdoing against the presiding judge.
Nevertheless, the claims are expected to fuel ongoing legal and public discourse, particularly as appeals and related legal processes connected to Nnamdi Kanu’s case continue to unfold.
0 Comments