Did Justice James Omotosho’s Ruling on Nnamdi Kanu Follow the Law? Key Issues Raising Serious Debate

Did Justice James Omotosho’s Ruling on Nnamdi Kanu Follow the Law? Key Issues Raising Serious Debate

Glintnews Bulletin 21st November 2025

The recent judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho in the case involving detained IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu has drawn significant public and legal scrutiny, with analysts and members of the defence team outlining several procedural concerns they believe could affect the legitimacy of the ruling.

Unresolved Question of Jurisdiction

At the centre of the debate is the issue of jurisdiction.

Kanu’s legal team had formally challenged whether the Federal High Court had the authority to preside over the matter. Legal practitioners argue that once such a challenge is raised, the court is obligated to determine it before taking any further steps.

Analysts say the court proceeded without issuing a clear decision on the matter, a situation they caution could undermine the foundation of the ruling.

Controversy Over Final Written Addresses

Another major concern relates to final written addresses.

Court records show that Justice Omotosho directed the defence to reserve objections—including jurisdictional challenges—until the stage of final written addresses. However, the defence argues that they were later barred from filing those addresses before judgment was delivered.

Legal experts describe this as a potential breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing.

Pending Applications Without Written Rulings

Several applications filed by the defence—concerning allegations of illegal rendition, the applicability of repealed laws, and the validity of the charges—were reportedly not addressed through written rulings.

Judicial procedure in Nigeria requires judges to issue written reasons for deciding or refusing applications. Analysts warn that omissions of this nature could become critical at the appellate stage.

Dispute Over Use of a Repealed Law

A major contention revolves around the legal framework used to prosecute the case.

The charges relied on provisions of the Terrorism Act of 2013, which was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2022.

While the prosecution referenced the savings clause in the new Act to justify the continued use of the older law, defence lawyers insist that a repealed law cannot form the basis of a fresh plea. This legal disagreement is expected to be a significant point of argument on appeal.

Concerns About Evidence Not Contained in the Charge

Legal commentators also highlight that the judgment referenced certain allegations—such as reported threats to diplomatic facilities—that were not included in the formal charges or supported by witness testimony.

Analysts argue that such references may conflict with constitutional requirements that convictions must be based strictly on established evidence and clearly stated offences.

Double Criminality Issues Left Unaddressed

Because the government alleged that some offences occurred outside Nigeria, defence lawyers argue that the principle of double criminality required proof that such conduct was also a crime in the foreign jurisdiction involved. According to observers, no documentation or testimony from Kenyan authorities was presented in court to support this requirement.

Concerns About Fair Hearing and the Path Ahead

Legal experts note that Nigerian law considers fair hearing a fundamental component of any criminal trial. Any action that restricts a defendant’s ability to raise objections or address the court may render proceedings void.

Kanu’s legal team has already indicated that these issues will constitute major grounds for an appeal.

Outlook

The judgment is now expected to face rigorous review at the appellate level, where many of the unresolved legal questions may be clarified. Analysts say the case could set important precedents on judicial procedure, the handling of terrorism-related prosecutions, and the interpretation of jurisdiction in politically sensitive trials.