The Facts From Today’s (24 October 2025) Proceedings In Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial

 

By Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq. (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium)

Contrary to the anticipated false narratives already being circulated by state-aligned media, today’s proceedings before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja exposed yet again the structural bias and denial of fair hearing that have characterized the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

Key Facts from Today’s Sitting:

(i) Nnamdi Kanu’s Request for Time to Study His File:

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu informed the court that his legal team had been disengaged only yesterday, and that Thursday being a non-visitation day, there was no lawful means for anyone to deliver his legal files to him in DSS custody. His Special Counsel and brother, who usually provides these materials, are themselves in illegal government detention. The request for time was a constitutional demand under Section 36(6)(b) CFRN 1999, not a delay tactic.

(ii) Limited Access to Legal Consultation:

Mazi NNAMDI KANU requested that his consultation days with legal and medical consultants be expanded from three days per week to five, which the court granted. He also protested that the DSS continues to bug his privileged conversations with counsel, contrary to Sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution and Rule 14 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

Justice Omotosho claimed he had vacated his courtroom for consultation and that Kanu “failed to utilise it” — a statement that ignores the absurdity of compelling a man to enter his defence after barely three hours of consultation in a capital offence trial. Such action is patently perverse and contrary to the principle in Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt 779) 437.

(iii) Denial of Fair Hearing Admitted, Yet Trial Continues:

By admitting that he vacated his courtroom to remedy communication constraints, Justice Omotosho implicitly admitted violation of fair hearing. Once such violation is established, the court is bound to terminate proceedings (Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 117) 517).

Instead, the Judge sought refuge in a claim that “no evidence has been placed before him,” even though a Motion on Notice laying the evidential foundation for the jurisdictional objection was pending but unheard. One cannot dismiss what one refuses to hear.

(iv) Silence on Foreign Witnesses:

Kanu’s witnesses from the USA, Kenya, UK and Ethiopia remain stranded. The court’s silence on this critical application reinforces the perception of a deliberate effort to stifle defence evidence.

(v) Denial of Certified True Copies (CTCs):

When Kanu was about to request the Certified True Copy of the transcript and the ruling on his oral jurisdictional objection, to enable him proceed to the Appeal Court, Justice Omotosho abruptly called another case and ordered Nnamdi Kanu to leave his court — an act reminiscent of contempt for open justice and Section 36(1)’s guarantee of public hearing and record access.

This is the truth, don't let them feed you lies.