HURIWA condemns Kanu verdict, says judgement violates constitution and fair hearing

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has strongly criticised the judgement delivered on Thursday by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, describing it as a miscarriage of justice and a blatant violation of constitutional guarantees.

In a statement issued by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, the group said the ruling against the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, failed to address crucial constitutional and legal questions raised in court. HURIWA said the judge ignored Kanu’s objections that he was being tried under a counter-terrorism law that had already been repealed and that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed while related appeals were pending at the appellate courts.

According to HURIWA, the entire judgment amounted to “judicial haste, judicial avoidance, and judicial injustice,” insisting that Justice Omotosho ought to have suspended the decision until the Court of Appeal resolved unresolved jurisdictional and procedural disputes.

The group questioned why the judge appeared “determined to rush to judgment” despite Kanu’s repeated insistence that fresh motions had been filed at the appellate court challenging the legality of the charges, the prosecution’s refusal to respond to his applications, and the use of an inoperative law as the basis for the allegations.

Citing court records, HURIWA said Kanu specifically informed the court that he had filed processes challenging the validity of the charges under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, which was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. It argued that the defect rendered the charge sheet incompetent under Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which requires that any offence must be defined by an existing written law.

Despite the objections, the association said Justice Omotosho insisted he would proceed with judgment, a stance it described as “judicial aggression against due process.” HURIWA faulted the court for refusing to address what it called the most fundamental question: why the federal government was prosecuting Kanu under a law that no longer exists.

“Nothing in Nigerian jurisprudence permits a criminal trial to stand where the charge is incompetent or predicated on a repealed statute,” the statement noted, adding that long-standing judicial authorities require jurisdictional and constitutional issues to be resolved before any judgement can be delivered.

The group also accused the court of breaching Section 36 of the Constitution by denying Kanu adequate facilities to prepare his defence. It cited judicial precedents such as Adeniyi v. State, which emphasises that jurisdiction must be settled before trial; Deduwa v. Okorodudu, which holds that even a likelihood of unfairness nullifies proceedings; and Ogba v. State, which mandates courts to address all essential issues raised by an accused person.

HURIWA dismissed the judge’s finding that Kanu “deliberately refused” to open his defence as misleading, noting that the IPOB leader merely insisted that the court must first determine the competence of the charges—an approach the group said was fully consistent with Nigerian criminal procedure.

The rights organisation maintained that the extraordinary circumstances of the case demanded judicial restraint rather than speed, especially in light of pending appeals on issues such as extraordinary rendition, the legality of the charges, constitutional references, and the validity of the charge sheet.

Concluding, HURIWA described the judgement as “fundamentally defective” for failing to address the repealed-law controversy, proceeding despite pending appeals, and denying the defendant adequate opportunity to be heard. It called on the National Judicial Council to review the conduct of the trial and urged the Court of Appeal to overturn a ruling it said “offends both the law and the conscience of the nation.”