AVID Condemns ‘Judicial Travesty’, Says Nnamdi Kanu Won’t Get Fair Hearing

The American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) has 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.

AVID, in a statement issued on Thursday and signed by its President, Chief Dr. Sylvester Onyia, AVID expressed “grave concern and total condemnation” over what it called the erosion of constitutional and judicial standards in Kanu’s case.

The statement alleged that the trial lacked legal foundation and violated both domestic and international principles of fair hearing.

“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,” the group stated.

“This is a non-derogable constitutional safeguard, a cornerstone of due process, and a measure of any civilized nation’s commitment to justice.”

According to AVID, the Nigerian government continues to prosecute Kanu under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, despite the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which replaced it.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 Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013 — which ceased to exist upon the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022,” AVID said.

“Justice Omotosho, contrary to the mandatory duty of judicial notice under Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, has refused to acknowledge this repeal. This is not a mere oversight; it is a judicial dereliction of constitutional duty.”

The group further faulted the judge’s alleged decision to defer ruling on issues of jurisdiction and double jeopardy until final judgment, insisting that such questions strike at the root of any criminal trial.

“Justice Omotosho’s posture of ‘wait till judgment’ on questions of jurisdiction, double jeopardy, and validity of charge is the opposite of established precedents of the Supreme Court of Nigeria,” the statement noted.

“Jurisdictional defects strike at the root of a case and must be determined forthwith, not deferred. No court, no matter how highly placed, can arrogate to itself jurisdiction it does not possess,” the statement emphasised.

AVID cited Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which, it said, requires that any alleged terrorism committed abroad 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, thus nullifying the moral and legal foundation of the entire trial,” the group argued.

The organization also accused Nigeria’s legal and judicial institutions of silence in the face of what it termed “constitutional infidelity.”

“It is appalling that in the face of such manifest constitutional infidelity, Nigeria’s legal institutions — the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the National Judicial Council (NJC), and so-called legal analysts — have chosen cowardly silence,” the group lamented.

“A nation whose lawyers fear to ask, ‘Under what law is this man being tried?’ has surrendered its conscience to tyranny,” the group added.

AVID also expressed concern over what it called “the destruction of every element of fair hearing” guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the Constitution.

“From the denial of access to lawyers and family in DSS custody to the judicial disregard of documentary evidence before the court, every element of fair hearing has been destroyed in Justice Omotosho’s court,” it said.

Citing an incident in open court, the veterans’ group claimed Kanu had asked for a brief recess in the judge’s chambers “to prevent the judiciary’s embarrassment” but was denied.

“When Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in court, asked for a five-minute recess in the judge’s chambers to prevent the judiciary’s embarrassment, he was rebuffed,” AVID said.

“When he raised the profound constitutional question — ‘Under what law am I being tried?’ — Justice Omotosho retorted, ‘Wait till judgment.’ That a sitting Federal High Court judge can preside over a criminal trial without identifying a subsisting law is the ultimate indictment of Nigeria’s judicial decay,” AVID stressed.

The group 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 present form, is not just a constitutional aberration but an affront to international human rights standards on fair trial and rule of law,” the statement read.

AVID urged Nigeria to “choose between law and lawlessness,” saying the ongoing proceedings undermine the nation’s claim to democracy.

“Justice Omotosho’s courtroom has become a theatre of constitutional absurdity — a place where a man is asked to defend himself against a non-existent law, where judicial notice is optional, and where constitutional provisions are treated as irritants,” the group said.

“If Nigeria still claims to be a constitutional democracy, it must immediately halt this charade, restore the rule of law, and release Mazi Nnamdi Kanu unconditionally.”