By Gabriel Ameh
The American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) has strongly condemned what it described as a “continuing judicial travesty” in the ongoing trial of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
In a statement issued on Thursday and signed by its President, Chief Dr. Sylvester Onyia, the U.S.-based group expressed “grave concern and total condemnation” over what it called the erosion of constitutional safeguards and due process in Kanu’s case.
AVID alleged that the prosecution of Kanu lacked legal foundation and violated both Nigerian and international fair hearing standards.
“Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) is clear under Section 36(12) that no person shall be tried for any criminal offence unless that offence and its penalty are defined in a written law. This is a non-derogable constitutional safeguard a cornerstone of due process in any civilized democracy,” the statement read.
The veterans’ group accused the Nigerian government of continuing to prosecute Kanu under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, despite the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which replaced it.
“Yet before the world and under Justice Omotosho’s watch, the Nigerian state persists in trying Mazi Nnamdi Kanu under a dead law — the 2013 Terrorism Act — which ceased to exist upon the passage of the 2022 Act,” AVID stated.
“Justice Omotosho’s refusal to take judicial notice of this repeal, as required by Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, is not an oversight but a grave dereliction of constitutional duty,” the group added.
AVID also faulted the judge’s alleged decision to defer ruling on critical issues of jurisdiction and double jeopardy until final judgment, arguing that such issues strike at the foundation of a criminal trial.
“The Supreme Court has made it clear that jurisdictional defects must be determined immediately. Justice Omotosho’s ‘wait till judgment’ approach contradicts established legal precedents,” the group warned.
Citing Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, AVID noted that any alleged terrorism committed outside Nigeria must also constitute an offence in the jurisdiction where it occurred in this case, Kenya, where Kanu was allegedly abducted.
“This double criminality requirement has not been met, yet the judge insists on proceeding, nullifying both the moral and legal foundation of the trial,” the statement said.
The group further accused Nigeria’s legal and judicial institutions — including the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) — of “cowardly silence” in the face of what it termed “constitutional infidelity.”
“A nation whose lawyers fear to ask, ‘Under what law is this man being tried?’ has surrendered its conscience to tyranny,” AVID declared.
AVID also cited multiple violations of Kanu’s right to fair hearing, including denial of access to his lawyers and family members while in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), and alleged disregard of documentary evidence before the court.
“From denial of access to counsel to refusal to admit critical evidence, every element of fair hearing has been destroyed in Justice Omotosho’s court,” the group said.
According to AVID, during a recent court session, Kanu reportedly asked for a short recess in chambers “to prevent embarrassment to the judiciary,” but was denied.
“When Kanu asked, ‘Under what law am I being tried?’ Justice Omotosho retorted, ‘Wait till judgment.’ That a sitting Federal High Court judge can preside over a trial without identifying a subsisting law is the ultimate indictment of Nigeria’s judicial decay,” the group added.
AVID called on international bodies including the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the U.S. Department of State, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to monitor and document what it described as “ongoing judicial abuses in Nigeria.”
“The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in its current form, is a constitutional aberration and an affront to global standards of fair trial and rule of law,” the statement read.
The group urged the Nigerian government to “choose between law and lawlessness,” warning that the ongoing proceedings undermine the nation’s democratic credibility.
“Justice Omotosho’s courtroom has become a theatre of constitutional absurdity where a man is asked to defend himself under a repealed law, where judicial notice is optional, and where constitutional provisions are treated as irritants,” AVID said.
AVID concluded by demanding Kanu’s unconditional release and a restoration of the rule of law.
