- Warns of far-reaching implications for rule of law
A blistering legal critique has emerged over the November 20, 2025, judgment delivered by Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court in the terrorism trial of separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu, with a Senior Advocate arguing that multiple procedural and evidentiary lapses could undermine confidence in Nigeria’s criminal justice system.
Chris Ehumadu Okeke, SAN, said he delayed commenting on the ruling until he had carefully reviewed the judgment, ultimately concluding that several aspects raise troubling constitutional and legal questions.
At the heart of his argument is a warning that the certainty of law—considered a cornerstone of democratic societies—must not be compromised, regardless of the personalities involved.
“Societies are built not on the conveniences of today’s actors but on the rule of law when applied fairly and evenly,” he said.
Jurisdiction Questioned Over Broadcast Evidence
Okeke contends that the prosecution failed to establish a critical element of its case: where the alleged radio broadcast that formed the basis of the terrorism charge originated.
According to him, identifying the location of the broadcast is not a technicality but a jurisdictional necessity tied to the legal doctrine of dual criminality, which ensures cross-border offences are prosecuted within clear legal boundaries.
He cited provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act requiring that charges specify the time and place of an alleged offence to adequately notify the defendant.
Failure to do so, he argued, risks transforming prosecution into persecution.
Statements Taken Without Counsel
The senior lawyer also faulted the taking of some of Kanu’s statements in the absence of legal representation, describing it as a violation of statutory protections.
He referenced the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which mandates that suspects may make statements in the presence of a lawyer or designated witness, a position he noted has received judicial backing from the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Extraordinary Rendition Controversy Resurfaces
Okeke further revived debate over Kanu’s return to Nigeria from Kenya, arguing that the process appeared inconsistent with the country’s Extradition Act.
He maintained that once the defendant raised the issue—effectively an alibi in municipal law—the burden shifted to the prosecution to disprove it.
“The courts are not to gloss over such matters,” he said, warning that overlooking them risks muddying established criminal jurisprudence.
Missing Nexus Between Allegations and Violence
Another pillar of the critique centres on what Okeke described as the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses who acted on Kanu’s alleged incitements.
Without testimony directly linking the defendant to violent acts, he argued, the case lacked the legal nexus required to sustain terrorism allegations.
“These requirements exist to ensure prosecutions are based on clear legal standards, not the fancies of a prosecuting authority,” he said.
Hearsay Evidence Concerns
Okeke also pointed to portions of testimony he believes amounted to hearsay—evidence given by witnesses who did not directly observe the events in question.
The Evidence Act, he noted, sets strict limits on such material because of its inherent unreliability in criminal trials.
Unusual Post-Judgment Order Raises Eyebrows
Particularly striking, he said, was the court’s indication that consequential orders could be sought after the 90-day appeal window.
Such a suggestion appears to conflict with the doctrine of functus officio, which holds that a judge’s authority largely ends once a final decision is delivered, except for minor clerical corrections.
“In over three decades of courtroom practice, I have yet to encounter an order like this,” he remarked.
Sentence Start Date Sparks Debate
Okeke further questioned why the prison term was ordered to run from the date of sentencing rather than from the period already spent in custody—a practice commonly recognised in criminal procedure.
He argued that the court cited no legal authority for departing from this norm, effectively discounting years already served.
Bigger Than One Case
While acknowledging that appellate courts ultimately determine the fate of contested rulings, the senior advocate framed his intervention as part of a broader warning about institutional integrity.
If procedural safeguards can be sidestepped in one high-profile case, he suggested, the precedent could reverberate far beyond a single defendant.
“The law is called the rule of law—not the rule of convenience or of man,” he said, cautioning that selective application of justice today could create victims tomorrow.
As legal observers await potential appeals, the critique is likely to reignite debate over due process, judicial discretion and the delicate balance between national security prosecutions and constitutional protections in Nigeria.
