Amid legal fireworks in the terrorism trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID), alleges Federal Government’s plot to slam life imprisonment on the accused, which would trigger unintended consequences, and therefore warns the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho to tread cautiously in his final judgement
By Udoka Ekeleme, Abuja
The worst may not have been heard about the ethnic plot by the South west-dominated presidency and judiciary to use Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Federal High Court to slam life imprisonment on the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, on Thursday, November 20, 2025. Despite the claims by Kanu that he is being tried under repealed laws against the provisions of some sections of the Constitution, it has been revealed by the American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) how four South west indigenes have hatched a plot to use Omotosho to do the hatchet job of sentencing Kanu to life jail amid calls across the country on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to set the embattled IPOB leader free. This medium gathered that it is a conspiracy of the highest level by these prominent Yoruba national figures, including Tinubu, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Omotosho, to ensure that from the High Court to the Supreme Court, Kanu must never get a reprieve no matter how long the terrorism trial lasts.
Recall that late former President Muhammadu Buhari under whose government Kanu was arrested in Kenya, had wisely declared he would not interfere in the judicial processes regarding the IPOB leader’s trial. Buhari was alleged to have allowed the trial linger as long as his government lasted in order to avoid eliciting ethnic suspicion between the Hausa-Fulani and the Igbo of the South east.
Consequently, Buhari was alleged not to be in a hurry in the trial, considering what would be the intended and unintended consequences of the outcome. This is in apparent regard to the influence Kanu wields in the entire Igbo race, as well as his international posture. According to AVID, in a sheer disregard to the volatile atmosphere in the country, Tinubu and his government have allegedly concluded the plot to confine Kanu to life imprisonment as a means to discourage other agitators in the South east from calling for Igbo emancipation from Nigeria due to marginalization. The plot also follows the fate that befell Samuel Ekpa, another agitator, in Finland. Ekpa was sent to jail recently in that country over Biafra agitation.
CONTRIVED TRIAL
The trial of Mazi Kanu has taken a new dimension since last October when he disengaged his media team and opted to defend himself. However, Kanu also declined to enter his defence citing repealed laws and jurisdiction issues.
For the fourth time, Kanu, on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, failed to open his defence to the seven-count terrorism charge the Federal Government preferred against him.
At the resumed proceedings, Kanu, who is conducting his case by himself, after he disengaged his team of lawyers, insisted he has no case to answer.
He maintained that in the absence of a valid charge pending before the court, there was no legal basis for him to either open his defence or to file and exchange a final written address with Federal Government.
Instead, Kanu urged the judge to take judicial notice of the motion he filed along with a supporting affidavit, which challenged the jurisdiction of the court to continue to try him over an offence he said is unknown to any extant law.
Kanu asked the court to order his immediate release from the custody of the Department of State Service (DSS), where he has been detained since 2021.
Kanu said, “You cannot ask me to begin my defence when you have not stated the law under which I am being charged. The records of this court show there is no law backing these charges. I request to be released. My Lord, please take judicial notice of all the records before this court”.
Citing section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, Kanu contended that there was no law to back the charge against him, even as he accused the court of violating a Supreme Court judgment which he said condemned his extraordinary rendition from Kenya.
When he was reminded that the Supreme Court remitted his case for a fresh trial, Kanu stood his ground that trying him over a non-existent crime amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights.
He said, “In Nigeria today, the Constitution is the Supreme law; there is no provision for terrorism offence in the Constitution. There is no valid charge against me. I will not go back to any detention today.
“Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act has been repealed. I cannot put in defence under a repealed law. I won’t do that.
“Tell any lawyer to show me the valid charge. I appeal to you to please take judicial notice of the repeal of the terrorism charges. I am not ready to go back to detention today unless I am shown the valid charge against me.
“I cannot be tried under a law that has been repealed. A law that is not written in our Constitution. Prosecuting me under a repealed law is a violation of my fundamental right,” he added.
In his response, the prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), queried the competence of the documents Kanu served on him, insisting they lacked probative value and should be discounted by the court.
The Federal Government’s lawyer prayed the court not to further indulge the defendant, who he said was merely wasting valuable judicial time.
He urged the court to deem the documents that Kanu recently filed as his final written address and to order parties to adopt the processes to enable judgment to be delivered in the matter.
In a short ruling, Justice Omotosho dismissed Federal Government’s contention that the processes Kanu filed were not competent.
Justice Omotosho said the court would take them into consideration in its judgment.
Besides, the court said it took notice of the fact that the defendant is not a lawyer and decided to give him a further opportunity to consult a legal practitioner for further guidance.
Justice Omotosho hinted that the court would foreclose Kanu’s right should he fail to defend the charge within the period allotted for him to do so.
He subsequently adjourned further proceeding till Wednesday, November 5, 2025 for Kanu to either enter his defence or have his right to do so waived.
Justice Omotosho had, on October 24, 2025 ordered the IPOB leader to open his defence to the charges against him.
However, Kanu, who earlier named several individuals that included serving Governors, Ministers, ex-Governors, and Security Chiefs, among the 23 persons he intended to produce as his witnesses, later made a volte face and shelved his plan to defend the charges.
Kanu had initially prayed that the court grant him a 90-day period for the witnesses he described as vital to testify in the matter.
Among his earlier proposed witnesses were the Governor of Imo state, Hope Uzodimma; that of Lagos state, Babajide Sanwo-Olu; Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike; the immediate past Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami; as well as a former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd).
Others were the Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; the immediate past Governor of Abia State, Okezie Ikpeazu; a former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd); the immediate past Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Ahmed Rufai Abubakar; as well as the former Director-General of the Department of State Service (DSS), Yusuf Bichi.
In the motion dated October 21 and marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu equally hinted that he would call other persons whose names were not on the list he submitted.
On the day he was to open his defence, though the court reserved seats for the “summoned witnesses,” Kanu backtracked.
The court had earlier rejected a no-case-submission which Kanu filed to persuade the court to discharge and acquit him.
At the resumed trial on Wednesday, November 5, 2025, Justice Omotosho gave Kanu one last chance to defend the seven-count terrorism charge the Federal Government entered against him.
Consequently, the judge adjourned the case till November 7 for the defendant to open his defence as he was previously ordered to do by the court.
The trial judge warned that he would foreclose Kanu’s right should he fail to enter his defence on the next adjourned date.
He said the decision was anchored on tenets of justice that required that the defendant should be granted sufficient opportunity to exonerate himself.
Justice Omotosho: “We had adjourned till today for the defendant to put in his defence or be deemed closed. But, I am bound to give him another opportunity to put in his defence.
“If he does not, I will deem him closed. I know that he is an Economist and not a lawyer. I will give the last opportunity to the defendant to put in his defence, failure of which he would be deemed closed.”
The development came after Kanu reaffirmed his position that he had no case to answer. He had after the case was called up, addressed the court from the dock.
He reiterated the reasons he elected not to open his defence, insisting that the charge pending against him was invalid as it was based on what he described as a “repealed and non-existent law.”
Kanu maintained that the Supreme Court had on the day it okayed his trial, directed that the charge against him should be amended.
He said the apex court based its decision on the fact that the charge was legally defective.
According to the defendant, in disobedience to the Supreme Court’s directive, the Federal Government defiantly docked him on the same charge without effecting the necessary amendments.
He insisted that the Federal Government’s refusal to amend the charge was fatal to his trial which he said could not be predicated on a repealed law.
Kanu said, “The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act has been repealed. I cannot put in defense under a repealed law. I won’t do that.”
But the Federal Government’s lawyer, Chief Awomolo, SAN, urged the court to go ahead and foreclose Kanu’s defence. The prosecution counsel drew the attention of the court to the fact that the defendant had wasted five out of the six days that was slated for his defence.
He argued that Kanu’s insistence that the charge was defective reflected his conclusive stance not to open his defence as directed.
Therefore, Awomolo had prayed the court to close the defence and order parties to file their final written addresses, a precursor to the delivery of judgement in the matter.
However, following Justice Omotosho’s intervention, having declared the court’s willingness to grant one more adjournment, Kanu, asked to be allowed to consult four lawyers that hitherto represented him in the case.
He gave names of the lawyers he described as his consultants, as; Nnaemeka Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Maxwell Okpara and Mandela Umegborogu.
Justice Omotosho, who acceded to the request, however cautioned the lawyers to refrain from discussing the court proceedings in the media.
At the resumed hearing on Friday, November 7, 2025 Justice Omotoso fixed November 20 to deliver its judgement on the seven-count terrorism charge. Justice Omotosho okayed the matter for judgement after Kanu, again declined to open his defence to the charge within the six days that were allotted to him by the court.
Rather, Kanu, on that Friday, filed a motion wherein he challenged the competence of the charge and the jurisdiction of the court to try him.
The trial court had stood down the case for one hour after the defendant, indicated his intention to file his defence. However, in the process Kanu rather insisted that his prosecution was based on a non-existent law.
He argued that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, under which the charge was brought against him, had since been repealed.
As the stage gets set for the impending judgement by Justice Omotosho, AVID has warned that Kanu’s case is capable of stroking embers of ethnic rivalry between the Igbo and the Yoruba race should Omotosho pronounce Kanu guilty and sentence him with penalties. Speaking on a viral video recently, Dr Sylvester Onyia, President of AVID warned, ”Honourable Justice Omotosho should do the right thing. We encourage him to follow the rule of law, you cannot charge a man for nothing and expect to do something with it.
”You cannot use a repealed law to judge any human being. You cannot do double jeopardy to any human being. You cannot extraordinarily rendition somebody from another country, Kenya, to Nigeria and want to profit from it. Illegality cannot yield anything. So, nobody is stupid these days.
”We will fight, just as we have won in the case of Country of Particular Concern designation, we will win in the case of Nnamdi Kanu, and we need to set him free and bring peace to normal human beings in Nigeria
”Concentrate on dealing with the people that are decimating everybody, people that are trying to kill off Christians, and leave people that want to live their normal life”.
AVID further alleged that Justice Omotosho is notorious for what it referred to as judicial rascality and recklessness in his judgements. Also, the Igbo veterans who claimed that Justice Omotosho is a strong ally of Nyesom Wike the Minister of the Federal Capital the Territory (FCT), also alleged the Judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has become a willing tool in the hands of the presidency to silence Kanu using the alleged impending life jail.
The American-based Igbo group further warned that any hatchet judgement against Kanu would attract a global condemnation and result in more uprising and unrest that can affect the fragile unity of the country. The group went further to challenge what it referred to as Yoruba nation’s penchant to undermine, sabotage and betray the Igbo nation which it said is finding expression on Tinubu government’s alleged unrestrained move to commit Kanu to life jail.
Meanwhile, the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, through its counsel, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., issued a strong statement urging Justice Omotosho to hear and determine the Motion to Arrest Judgment before delivering any final ruling in the ongoing case of Mazi Kanu.
The defence emphasized that the Motion to Arrest Judgment, filed on 10 November 2025, is a lawful and binding judicial process recognized under the Nigerian criminal jurisprudence. It is designed to prevent a court from delivering judgment where jurisdictional or procedural defects remain unresolved. The motion, grounded in Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), upholds every citizen’s right to be heard before any decision affecting their rights is made.
According to the consortium, to “arrest” judgment is to compel the court’s obedience to the Constitution by ensuring that no decision is rendered in breach of the right to fair hearing. This principle is not a matter of discretion but a constitutional safeguard against miscarriage of justice. The defence stressed that fair hearing is a non-derogable right — the very foundation of justice — and cited the landmark Supreme Court case Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, where it was held that fairness lies in the opportunity to be heard before judgment is made.
The defence expressed concern that Justice Omotosho had indicated an intention to deliver judgment on 20 November 2025, despite the fact that several pending motions — including the Motion to Arrest Judgment — remain unheard. These motions challenge the court’s jurisdiction, the validity of the charge, and the competence of the plea entered on 29 March 2025. Proceeding to judgment under such circumstances, the defence argued, would amount to a legal nullity and defy the constitutional requirement of due process.
Addressing claims that Mazi Kanu “refused to enter his defence,” the consortium clarified that he has, in fact, entered his defence by cross-examining prosecution witnesses, thereby challenging the credibility of the government’s case. In law, the consortium insisted, cross-examination forms part of the defence’s evidentiary effort. Kanu, they said, is not obliged to call witnesses to defend against charges brought under a repealed law – the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 – which has been replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
The statement further warned that if Justice Omotosho proceeded to deliver judgment without first hearing the Motion to Arrest Judgment, such a decision would violate the constitutional right to fair hearing, render the judgment void ab initio, and place the court’s action outside its jurisdiction. Citing legal precedents such as Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and Newswatch v. Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144, the defence noted that any judgment delivered in defiance of a pending motion questioning jurisdiction would be legally worthless.
The threat by Justice Omotoso to deliver judgement November 20 in Kanu’s case has drawn the anger of Igbos in Abuja who are warning him against igniting fresh crisis across the country.
According to the President of the Igbo Community Association in Abuja, Engr Ikenna-Ellis Ezenekwe and the Secretary Emmanuel Chinwoke Onah, the threat by the presiding judge would deepen the already heated polity which would not mean well for the country.
The body further urged President Tinubu to caution the judge in view of the security implications it may have should he make good his threat.
The Igbo body said, “The Igbos in the Federal Capital Territory [FCT] Abuja are unsettled by the unfolding events at the Nigerian judiciary over the Maxi Nnamdi Kanu trial.
“The decision by Justice Omotoso to give judgement on November 20, 2025 against Nnamdi Kanu will potentially ignite another crisis in Nigeria.
“This is because Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is yet to present his defence and it would be unfair to judge a defendant who has yet to present his defence”.
The group also contended that the Nigerian security operatives erred by breaking into the territorial integrity of a country to kidnap Mazi Kanu, describing it as most unfortunate.
“It is clear to the people of Nigeria that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was illegally abducted from Kenya and brought to Nigeria and detained for four years for a crime he has not been found guilty for.
“President Tinubu must call Justice Omotoso to approach this situation with wisdom and extreme caution. Nigeria cannot be allowed to undergo another unrest amidst a growing anxiety over President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern [CPC].
“President Tinubu should listen to the voices of the masses who are calling for a political solution to the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu matter.
“As a Democrat, it is the most suitable path to follow to reach lasting solution. Igbo Community in the FCT along with the good people of Nigeria are calling on the President to release Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and end the growing quagmire”.
A human rights lawyer, Dele Farotimi, has equally raised concerns over the inconsistencies in Nigeria’s approach to national security. In a recent interview on Channels Television, Farotimi highlighted the contrast between the detention of the IPOB leader in DSS custody and notorious terrorist Bello Turji, who allegedly continues to move freely, issuing ultimatums and threats.
Farotimi questioned the government’s commitment to combating terrorism, noting that financiers of armed groups, even those convicted abroad, face no consequences in Nigeria.
He said, “Nnamdi Kanu is held in a DSS cell today, but Bello Turji is busy strolling around issuing ultimatums. Sometimes they move in convoys as large as 500, and the Nigerian government negotiates peace.”
Lending his voice to the call for the unconditional release of Kanu from detention, Honourable Obi Aguocha, a member of the House of Representatives representing Ikwuano/Umuahia North/Umuahia South Federal Constituency, has raised serious concerns over the ongoing terrorism trial of Mazi Kanu.
Speaking during a recent interview with Symfoni TV, Aguocha stated that Kanu has asked a fundamental question that neither the presiding judge nor the prosecution has been able to answer — “On what law is he being tried?”
According to Aguocha, despite several motions raised by Kanu’s legal team that went unchallenged, the court continues with the proceedings, raising doubts about the trial’s fairness. He emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction must be resolved before any further action, noting that the judge has reserved ruling for November 20.
Aguocha described the situation as worrisome, stressing that the absence of clarity on the legal foundation of the case threatens the credibility of the entire judicial process.
In its own argument, another American-based Igbo group identified as Rising Sun Foundation, has adduced reasons Nigerian courts lacked legitimacy to try Kanu. The group argued that Kanu’s abduction in Kenya and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, in violation of international law, stripped Nigeria of any legitimacy to try him.
In its statement jointly signed by Rev. Father Augustine Odimmegwa and Mazi Maxwell Dede, the Foundation said the Federal Government failed in following due process in the trial of Kanu who was abducted, and was charged under a dead law. ”The Court of Appeal discharged him, yet the DSS keeps him locked up in total disregard for that ruling”, the Rising Sun Foundation stated.
Kanu, on his part, has approached the Court of Appeal once again to restrain the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Omotosho from delivering the November 20 judgement. On Wednesday, November 12, Kanu prayed the Appeal Court in Abuja to order the lower Court to halt the scheduled judgement.
The appeal is against the September 26, 2025 ruling of Justice Omotosho which dismissed Kanu’s no-case submission and ordered him to enter his defence against the terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.
Amid the allegations against the Yoruba conspirators to sentence Kanu to life imprisonment, President Tinubu has said he would not interfere in the trial. The Senior Special Assistant to the President on Community Engagement for the South east region, Mrs Chioma Wesley, told State House correspondents in Abuja on Monday, November 10, 2025 that since the case remains in the court, Tinubu would not make any public statement in that regard so as to respect the rule of law. ”Nnamdi Kanu’s case is in court, and the President cannot make any pronouncement on it. He abides by the rule of law. So, for now, we wait for the court to make the decision ”, Wesley said.
