HURIWA slams Court judgment on Nnamdi Kanu, calls ruling “travesty of justice”

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has strongly condemned the judgment delivered on Thursday by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, describing it as a “travesty of justice” and a violation of Nnamdi Kanu’s constitutional right to fair hearing.

In a detailed statement, HURIWA said the ruling ignored critical legal and constitutional issues raised by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), including his argument that he was being tried under a repealed counter-terrorism law and that the court lacked jurisdiction since related appeals were still pending at higher courts.

The rights group accused Justice Omotosho of “judicial haste, judicial avoidance, and judicial injustice”, insisting that the trial court should not have proceeded while the Court of Appeal was yet to resolve jurisdictional disputes.

HURIWA questioned why the court appeared determined to rush its decision despite Kanu’s repeated notifications that he had filed fresh motions challenging the legality of the charges and the failure of the prosecution to reply to his applications.

According to HURIWA, court records show that Kanu informed Justice Omotosho that the charges were filed under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.

He argued that the charge sheet did not cite any valid existing law as required under Section 36(12) of the Constitution, rendering the entire trial incompetent. The group criticised the judge for insisting on delivering judgment despite these objections, describing the stance as “judicial aggression against due process”.

READ ALSO: HURIWA slams Court, IGP over “weaponised” ex-parte order against Sowore

HURIWA further faulted the court for failing to address what it called the most fundamental flaw in the trial— the use of a non-existent law to prosecute Kanu.

It noted that Nigerian legal precedent forbids criminal proceedings based on invalid charges or inoperative statutes, adding that courts are bound to resolve issues of jurisdiction and constitutionality before delivering judgment.

The association also accused the court of violating Section 36 of the Constitution by denying Kanu adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. It said the ruling ran contrary to established judicial authorities such as Adeniyi v. State, Deduwa v. Okorodudu, and Ogba v. State, which emphasise the need to exhaust jurisdictional and procedural objections before proceeding with trial.

HURIWA rejected the judge’s conclusion that Kanu refused to open his defence, calling it misleading.

It explained that Kanu insisted he could not mount a defence until the court ruled on the legality of the charges— a position the group said is consistent with Nigerian criminal procedure.

The association concluded that the judgment is fundamentally flawed for failing to address the repealed-law issue, ignoring pending appeals, and denying Kanu fair hearing.

It called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to review the conduct of the trial and urged the Court of Appeal to overturn what it described as a ruling that “offends both the law and the conscience of the nation”.