The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium has described the trial of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, as “prosecution from the bench”, alleging that the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, ignored mandatory legal provisions and binding Supreme Court directives.
The consortium, a group of lawyers advocating Kanu’s release, made the allegation in a statement issued on Thursday by lawyer Onyedikachi Ifedi. Ifedi accused Justice Omotosho of selectively applying the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011, during the proceedings that led to Kanu’s conviction.
“When a trial judge actively selects which statutory commands to obey and which to ignore in order to preserve a politically charged prosecution, that is not an innocent oversight — that is prosecution from the bench,” he said.Legal career development. The lawyer argued that the judge could not claim ignorance of the law, particularly the provisions of the Evidence Act, which he alleged were deliberately overlooked when they could have benefited the defendant.
“Justice James Omotosho cannot claim ignorance, oversight, or unfamiliarity with the Evidence Act. His own judgment proves he knew the law, understood its mandatory duty, and knew precisely how to deploy it as a legal weapon,” Ifedi stated.
He cited page 34 of the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
According to Ifedi, Justice Omotosho invoked Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011, to take judicial notice of laws and court orders, including an order issued by Justice Binta Nyako’s predecessor, Justice Abdul Kafarati, on September 20, 2017, proscribing IPOB as a terrorist organisation.
The judgment reportedly stated that the court was bound to take judicial notice of the laws of the land, gazetted orders and rulings of courts of coordinate jurisdiction under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
However, Ifedi alleged that the judge applied the same provision selectively when the defence sought to challenge the legal foundation of the charges against Kanu.
“The trial judge admitted in black and white that the statutory command was mandatory. He weaponised Section 122 to import Justice Kafarati’s ex parte proscription order into the trial to convict the defendant. Yet, when the exact same Section 122 was invoked by the defence to challenge the legal foundation of the charge sheet itself, the court suddenly went blind and mute,” he said.International law news
The lawyer further alleged that Justice Omotosho disregarded a binding Supreme Court pronouncement requiring Nigerian courts to take judicial notice of primary statutory enactments, including repealed laws.
Citing the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires courts to follow binding judicial precedents, Ifedi argued that the trial judge had no legal basis to ignore the principle after acknowledging it in his judgment.
“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, Justice Omotosho had zero legal room to manoeuvre. He was bound by the statute. He was bound by Supreme Court precedent. He had already acknowledged the rule on page 34 of his judgment. Ignoring this binding obligation when it favoured the defendant was an act of open judicial defiance,” he declared.
Ifedi also accused the judge of taking advantage of Kanu’s alleged lack of legal representation during proceedings on November 4 and 5, 2025.
According to the lawyer, Kanu, while standing in the dock without counsel, urged the court to take judicial notice of the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and the alleged non-existence of the Criminal Code Act C-45.
Ifedi claimed that instead of suspending the proceedings to address the application, the judge dismissed it and continued with the trial.
He argued that granting the application would have exposed what he described as the use of repealed laws as the foundation of the charge sheet.
“To refuse to take judicial notice when invoked by an unrepresented defendant, only to force him to trial on repealed laws, constitutes a total failure of fair hearing and a judicial ambush,” he said.
The consortium also criticised what it described as double standards in the application of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, alleging that the court treated the provision as mandatory when it supported the prosecution but disregarded it when the defence relied on it.
“The certified trial record exposes an irreconcilable double standard in how Section 122 was deployed. When Section 122 assisted the State, it was an absolute mandatory command (‘This court is bound’). When Section 122 demonstrated that the charges were legally dead, it was ignored and replaced with a post-hoc assumption. That is not neutral adjudication. That is railroading under the colour of judicial authority,” Ifedi stated.
The allegations were made by the consortium in its criticism of the proceedings that culminated in Kanu’s conviction.