Justice Omotosho had set the date to deliver judgment in the
charge against Kanu, numbered FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

However, in the motion filed on November 10, 2025, Kanu, who
has taken personal control of his case, asked the court to halt the judgment on
the grounds that the proceedings were conducted under a repealed and
non-existent statute and in disobedience to the Supreme Court’s directive,
contrary to Section 286(1) of the Constitution.

The reliefs sought in the motion include an order arresting
delivery of judgment in the suit, and a declaration that the court’s failure to
take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, contrary to
Section 122, Evidence Act 2011, vitiates all steps taken thereunder.

Kanu equally asked for an order setting aside all
proceedings and orders made by Justice Omotosho for want of jurisdiction and
violation of constitutional supremacy.

In a statement issued by Onyedikachi Ifedi, on Tuesday,
November 11, 2025, the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium insisted that
Justice Omotosho must hear the motion to arrest judgment before proceeding, in
accordance with the non-derogable right to fair hearing and the rule of law.

Stressing that the motion to arrest judgment is a lawful,
binding judicial process, the Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium said, “On
10 November 2025, the defence of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu filed a motion to arrest
judgment before the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Hon. Justice
James Omotosho. That motion is not political theatre; it is a recognized legal
procedure in Nigerian criminal jurisprudence, designed to prevent a court from
delivering judgment where jurisdictional or foundational defects remain
unresolved.

“Although the phrase “arrest of judgment” appears in
procedural legislation such as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act
(ACJA) 2015, its constitutional foundation rests on Section 36(1) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which
guarantees every person “the right to be heard before any decision affecting
his rights or obligations is made.

“To “arrest” judgment is, therefore, to compel obedience to
the Constitution, to ensure that no judgment is delivered in breach of the
right to fair hearing. It is a lawful, binding, and time-honoured judicial
safeguard against miscarriage of justice.”

Ifedi further argued that fair hearing is non-derogable and
universally binding. “Fair hearing is not a privilege granted by a court; it is
the oxygen of justice itself.

It cannot be suspended, diluted, or deferred—not even by
judicial convenience. In Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 at 448, the
Supreme Court held that “Fair hearing lies not in the correctness of a decision
but in the opportunity afforded to be heard before the decision is made.”

He added, “A judgment delivered while a live motion,
especially one that questions jurisdiction or competence—is pending, is
constitutionally void. To ignore such a motion is to act in defiance of Section
36(1) and to deliver a verdict without legal life.”

Further explaining why the motion matters at the moment,
Kanu’s defence consortium observed that Justice Omotosho has announced his
intention to deliver final judgment on 20 November 2025, even though several
pending motions remain unheard, including the motion to arrest judgment filed
on 10 November 2025.

“These motions directly question the court’s jurisdiction,
the subsistence of any valid charge, and the validity of the plea entered on 29
March 2025.

To proceed to judgment without determining them would be to
pronounce upon nothingness—a legal absurdity,” the statement stressed.

In what it described as setting the record straight, the
defence consortium explained that Kanu has entered his defence, as ordered by
Justice Omotosho.

The statement added, “The persistent claim that Mazi Nnamdi
Kanu “refused to enter defence” is false and misleading. He entered his defence
fully within the meaning of law by subjecting the prosecution’s witnesses to
rigorous cross-examination, during which their credibility and the integrity of
the government’s evidence were demolished on record.

“Under Nigerian criminal procedure, cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses forms part of the defence’s evidentiary case. Having
dismantled the prosecution’s case under cross-examination, Kanu has no
obligation to call witnesses in defence of a charge that itself is a nullity.

“What he has declined to do is to call witnesses to validate
a non-existent charge, because the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013
under which he was purportedly tried has long been repealed and supplanted by
the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. He cannot defend himself
against a mirage.”

The statement noted that if Justice Omotosho proceeds to
deliver judgment without first hearing and determining the Motion to Arrest
Judgment, he would have denied the accused a constitutional right to be heard,
and acted without jurisdiction, as the competence of the court remains under
challenge.

The defence consortium argued that any such judgment will be
a nullity ab initio under established authorities including Madukolu v.
Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and Newswatch v. Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993)
144.

“To deliver judgment in the face of an unventilated motion
is to depart from the path of legality and to descend into judicial self-help.

“This case is not about one man—it is about whether Nigerian
courts will uphold the supremacy of the Constitution. The Motion to Arrest
Judgment is a procedural shield for the judiciary itself, preventing it from
issuing a judgment that would later be voided for constitutional infraction.

If that shield is cast aside, judicial legitimacy
collapses,” the statement said.

The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium called on the
Federal High Court to hear and determine the motion to arrest judgment before
taking any further step; and equally urged the Nigerian Bar Association to
defend the sanctity of fair hearing as the lifeblood of justice.

Appealing to the civil society to resist misinformation and
uphold the truth, the consortium urged the international community to note that
the right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution and the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004) is non-derogable
and binding.

“Justice Omotosho stands at a defining juncture: to affirm
the supremacy of the Constitution or to risk being recorded in history as the
judge who pronounced judgment over silence.

“The Motion to Arrest Judgment filed by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is
a lawful and constitutionally compelled act of self-defence. It demands that
the court obey the rule of law before it speaks in the name of justice. Until
that motion is heard and determined, no valid judgment can issue in
FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015. To proceed otherwise would be to trample upon the very
foundation of Nigeria’s constitutional order — the non-derogable right to be
heard,” the statement stressed.