The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has faulted the recent decision delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja in the case involving Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
The organisation labelled the ruling a “travesty of justice” and a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing.
In its statement issued by National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, HURIWA criticised the judgment for allegedly ignoring key constitutional and legal arguments raised by Kanu, especially his challenge against being tried under a counter-terrorism law that has already been repealed.
The group argued that “The judgment reflects judicial haste and injustice, and the court should have suspended its decision until the Court of Appeal resolved outstanding jurisdictional and procedural disputes,” insisting that the judge pushed ahead with the ruling despite pending appeals questioning the legality of the trial.
HURIWA further stated that Kanu had notified the court of his appeal challenging the validity of the charges filed under the defunct Terrorism Prevention Act 2013. The group noted, “The charge sheet does not disclose any existing written law as required under Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which vitiates the entire trial,” stressing that the prosecution relied on a repealed law.
The organisation maintained that “Nothing in Nigerian jurisprudence allows a criminal trial to stand when the charge is based on an inoperative statute,” adding that courts are obligated to settle constitutional and jurisdictional matters before taking further steps in a trial.
HURIWA also accused the court of breaching Section 36 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to a fair hearing. It referenced known judicial authorities stating that jurisdictional challenges must be resolved first and described the judge’s stance that Kanu refused to enter his defence as “disingenuous and misleading.”
The group emphasised that Kanu consistently insisted he could not proceed with his defence until the court determined the legality and competence of the charges, a position they said is consistent with established criminal procedure.
They argued that “In extraordinary circumstances like this, judicial restraint is required, not speed,” especially given the unresolved appeals on extraordinary rendition and the validity of the charges.
HURIWA concluded that the ruling is fundamentally defective due to the court’s failure to address the issue of the repealed law, its refusal to allow Kanu the chance to defend himself, and the disregard for ongoing appeals.
It urged the National Judicial Council to examine the conduct of the case and called on the Court of Appeal to set aside what it described as a judgment that violates both legal standards and moral conscience.
