By Okechukwu Ajoku
Legal Analyst
Many Nigerians never had the time, patience, or legal background to sit through Justice Omotosho’s lengthy explanations before delivering judgment on Nnamdi Kanu. But I did. I listened carefully, word for word — not because I support or oppose anyone, but because I have a working knowledge of the law, and it genuinely interests me to understand the reasoning behind any major judicial decision, especially one as sensitive and historic as this.
I was not in Abuja to follow every step of the trial. But I took the time to listen carefully before judgment was delivered. Many Nigerians did not — they only heard the final sentence.
What I heard before the sentence was more troubling than the sentence itself.
A judge who cannot properly explain the legal foundation of his ruling — and who resorts to incorrect foreign citations mixed with scattered grammar — raises a deeper question:
Is this truly justice, or is it judicial convenience wrapped in confusion?
Nigeria deserves clarity. Nigeria deserves competence.
Nigeria deserves judgments grounded in Nigerian law, not half-remembered foreign doctrines.
And above all, Nigerians deserve a judiciary that inspires confidence — not embarrassment.
What I heard that day was nothing short of embarrassing.
Before the sentencing, Justice Omotosho attempted to justify the legality of Nnamdi Kanu’s arrest, rendition, and prosecution. It was during this explanation that he made a shocking reference, one that exposed serious intellectual gaps and raised questions about judicial quality in Nigeria.
*He cited the case of a Mexican drug dealer kidnapped from Mexico and brought to the United States to stand trial.*
I recognized that he was referring, incorrectly and awkwardly to the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Alvarez-Machaín (1992). In that case, American agents abducted a Mexican doctor from foreign soil and brought him into the United States for trial. The U.S. Supreme Court controversially held that the abduction did not stop the trial, because *their extradition treaty did not expressly forbid such conduct.*
But let us be very clear:
That American doctrine is not Nigerian law.
It is not binding on any Nigerian court.
It cannot override the Nigerian Constitution.
And it has no place in the legal reasoning of a judgment delivered in Abuja.
This was the first red flag.
WHY OMOTOSHO’S CITATION WAS A SERIOUS MISFIRE
The U.S. case he tried to reference involved: Cross-border kidnapping; By bounty hunters acting for U.S. authorities, against a foreign citizen in a foreign sovereign nation without following proper extradition procedures. That is the Ker–Frisbie doctrine, unique to American jurisprudence and heavily criticized even within the United States.
Nigeria is not the United States. Our Constitution is not the U.S.Constitution. Our courts are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Under Nigerian law: Arrest must be lawful Detention must follow due process, Extraordinary rendition is unconstitutional, and Foreign cases are only persuasive — never binding.
This is why citing an American kidnapping case to justify a Nigerian criminal trial is not just inappropriate, it is intellectually careless.
It is like quoting Chinese marriage law to explain a divorce in Lagos. It simply does not follow.
THE BIGGER EMBARRASSMENT:
BROKEN ENGLISH, JITTERY DELIVERY, AND MISPLACED CONFIDENCE
As I listened, the delivery itself made things worse. The judge’s English was: broken at key points, full of hesitant constructions, grammatically unstable, inconsistent with the clarity expected from a court of record. Judges are not required to be poets, but they must be coherent.
Justice must not sound confused. The manner in which the American case was explained, mixed with badly structured English and unclear reasoning, left the entire logic hanging in the air. It did not flow. It did not convince. It did not meet the intellectual standard expected in such a serious matter.
NIGERIAN LAW IS CLEAR AND IT DOES NOT NEED AMERICA TO SPEAK FOR IT
On matters of: kidnapping, abduction, terrorism, illegal arrest, extradition, or extraordinary rendition, Nigeria has its own laws, including: The Nigerian Constitution The Extradition Act, The Criminal Code and Penal Code; The Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, and the Nigerian appellate court decisions.
These are the legal tools that shape justice in our system. American law does not appear anywhere in that hierarchy.
It can be referenced for comparative purposes, yes — but only: accurately, clearly, and in strict alignment with Nigerian provisions.
Justice Omotosho did not meet that standard.
WHY THIS MATTERS
This is not about politics or sentiment. It is about judicial quality.
When a judge: uses shaky English, misstates foreign law, relies on irrelevant American cases, and uses that to justify the legality of a highly sensitive arrest and trial, it creates serious doubt about the intellectual discipline behind the judgment.
Judgments are permanent records. They shape public trust. They define the credibility of the judiciary. In a democracy where people already feel uncertain about justice, the last thing we need is a judgment that sounds unsure of itself.
0 Comments