By Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.
1. The Motion to Arrest Judgment Is a Lawful, Binding Judicial Process:
On 10 November 2025, the defence of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu filed a Motion to Arrest Judgment before the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Hon. Justice James Omotosho.
That motion is not political theatre; it is a recognized legal procedure in Nigerian criminal jurisprudence, designed to prevent a court from delivering judgment where jurisdictional or foundational defects remain unresolved.
Although the phrase “arrest of judgment” appears in procedural legislation such as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, its constitutional foundation rests on Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which guarantees every person “the right to be heard before any decision affecting his rights or obligations is made.”
To “arrest” judgment is, therefore, to compel obedience to the Constitution—to ensure that no judgment is delivered in breach of the right to fair hearing. It is a lawful, binding, and time-honoured judicial safeguard against miscarriage of justice.
2. Fair Hearing Is Non-Derogable and Universally Binding:
Fair hearing is not a privilege granted by a court; it is the oxygen of justice itself.
It cannot be suspended, diluted, or deferred—not even by judicial convenience.
In Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 at 448, the Supreme Court held that
“Fair hearing lies not in the correctness of a decision but in the opportunity afforded to be heard before the decision is made.”
A judgment delivered while a live motion—especially one that questions jurisdiction or competence—is pending, is constitutionally void.
To ignore such a motion is to act in defiance of Section 36(1) and to deliver a verdict without legal life.
3. Why This Motion Matters Now:
Justice Omotosho has announced his intention to deliver final judgment on 20 November 2025, even though several pending motions remain unheard, including the Motion to Arrest Judgment filed on 10 November 2025.
These motions directly question the court’s jurisdiction, the subsistence of any valid charge, and the validity of the plea entered on 29 March 2025.
To proceed to judgment without determining them would be to pronounce upon nothingness—a legal absurdity.
4. Setting the Record Straight: Kanu Has Entered His Defence:
The persistent claim that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu “refused to enter defence” is false and misleading.
He entered his defence fully within the meaning of law by subjecting the prosecution’s witnesses to rigorous cross-examination, during which their credibility and the integrity of the government’s evidence were demolished on record.
Under Nigerian criminal procedure, cross-examination of prosecution witnesses forms part of the defence’s evidentiary case.
Having dismantled the prosecution’s case under cross-examination, Kanu has no obligation to call witnesses in defence of a charge that itself is a nullity.
What he has declined to do is to call witnesses to validate a non-existent charge, because the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 under which he was purportedly tried has long been repealed and supplanted by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He cannot defend himself against a mirage.
*Issued by: Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq. For: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
Date: 11 November 2025
@FederalHigh @njcNig @NigerianBarz @IBAnews @NGRSenate @NGRPresident @officialABAT @StateDept @FCDOGovUK @UN @UNHumanRights @GuardianNigeria @DailyPostNGR @SaharaReporters @channelstv @USinNigeria @RMontgomeryUK
0 Comments