Abuja, Nigeria Proceedings at the Federal High Court on 4 November 2025 have triggered widespread debate within Nigeria’s legal community after Mazi Nnamdi Kanu repeatedly asked a question that went unanswered throughout the session: under what specific law is he being prosecuted?
According to a comprehensive public brief released by Kanu’s legal team, the trial, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako Omotosho, proceeded without the court clearly identifying the statute, legal provision, or written law that forms the basis of the charges against the defendant or justifies his continued detention. Legal observers argue that this omission strikes at the heart of constitutional criminal procedure and raises fundamental due process concerns.
The defence team notes that during the proceedings, Justice Omotosho acknowledged Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which explicitly prohibits the trial or conviction of any person for an offence that is not defined by written law. However, the court reportedly narrowed the application of this provision, suggesting that it becomes relevant only at the point of conviction, not during the trial itself. Critics argue that this interpretation undermines the preventive purpose of the constitutional safeguard, which is meant to protect individuals from being subjected to criminal proceedings without a clear legal basis from the outset.
“The most elementary question in criminal law ‘what offence am I alleged to have committed, and under which law?’ was never answered,” the legal team stated in its brief. Instead of providing clarity, the court repeatedly deferred the issue, directing that it be addressed during a final address stage of the trial. According to the defence, that opportunity never materialized, as the court later eliminated the final address process altogether before proceeding to judgment.
The brief also levels serious criticism at the prosecution, led by Chief Awomolo. It alleges that the prosecution failed to articulate the legal foundation of the charges, effectively allowing the trial to continue without defining the offence in question. The defence describes this silence as part of an “institutional alignment” between the bench and the prosecution, which they claim worked in tandem to bypass established criminal procedure. As a result, Kanu was, in the words of his lawyers, compelled to mount a defence against charges that were never formally grounded in any cited law.
Beyond the issue of unidentified charges, the brief raises additional allegations, including the mischaracterization of evidence surrounding Kanu’s extraordinary rendition, the application of judicial pressure on the defence, and a perceived prioritization of court efficiency and docket management over strict adherence to constitutional requirements. The defence contends that these actions collectively reflect more than simple oversight or procedural confusion.
In a particularly stark conclusion, the legal team argues that the events of 4 November were not accidental but deliberate. They describe the proceedings as “a calculated effort to secure a conviction in the absence of a clearly stated legal foundation,” a claim that, if substantiated, would have far-reaching implications for the integrity of the judicial process.
To support its position, the defence has released the full record of the proceedings to the public, highlighting multiple instances in which Kanu’s requests for legal clarification were either ignored, deferred, or procedurally neutralized. The documents also point to moments where judicial and prosecutorial actions appeared coordinated in a way that limited the defence’s ability to challenge the legality of the trial itself.
Legal analysts and civil rights advocates say the case raises profound questions about the rule of law in Nigeria, particularly regarding due process guarantees, judicial independence, and the boundaries of prosecutorial authority. As public scrutiny intensifies, the proceedings are increasingly seen not merely as a trial of an individual, but as a broader test of constitutional accountability within the Nigerian justice system.
0 Comments