From “How Justice Omotosho Goofed in Kanu’s Trial”
A Seven-Day Legal Exposé
By Prof. MarkAnthony Nze
Investigative Journalist | Public Intellectual | Global Governance Analyst | Health & Social Care Expert | International Business/Immigration Law Professional |Strategic & Management Economist
A courtroom is supposed to be a sanctuary for reason. Its oxygen is procedure; its heartbeat, the written record. When either fails, justice begins to imitate theatre.
In the trial of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu, Justice James Kolawole Omotosho’s bench ceased to function as an instrument of law and began to perform as an extension of narrative. What should have been a measured contest between statute and evidence unfolded like a drama whose ending was already printed in the program.
The Anatomy of a Silenced Record
Nigeria’s Constitution does not leave fairness to intuition. Section 36(1) guarantees every citizen a hearing before “a court constituted to secure its independence and impartiality.” The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 converts that promise into detail: objections must be heard, motions ruled upon, decisions recorded in writing. These provisions exist so that justice may be traced, not guessed.
In this trial, the trace is broken. Jurisdictional challenges were acknowledged but never reasoned out. Requests for certified rulings produced silence. Oral dismissals replaced written analysis. Without a documented ruling, an appellate court has nothing to review; without review, legality dies in the transcript. A courtroom that neglects its record becomes a hall of recitation rather than adjudication.
When Procedure Yields to Performance
Every defense lawyer expects to meet a vigilant bench—one that interrogates both sides, tests evidence, and exposes the weakness of argument through questions. What confronted Kanu’s counsel was a bench that rarely asked and frequently commanded. “Proceed” became the password of the day. The rhythm of the proceedings felt less like inquiry and more like execution of a script.
Judicial independence is not measured by the length of a robe but by the willingness to pause the state and demand proof. When a judge stops interrupting the prosecution, neutrality ends by erosion rather than declaration. The Constitution in Section 6(6)(b) entrusts the judiciary with power to decide controversies. A decision reached without controversy is not a judgment; it is an endorsement.
Read also: Conviction Without Definition—Part 2
The Vanishing Dialogue of Fair Hearing
A criminal trial is dialogue disciplined by law. Each motion is a question; each ruling, an answer. The defendant’s right to “adequate time and facilities for defense,” under Section 36(6), presumes that the dialogue will be allowed to breathe. But compression became the method of control. When motions vanish from the file and reasons evaporate from the ruling, the accused is not defeated by evidence but by silence.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria domesticated in 1983, demands that judgments be reasoned. Reason is the soul of legitimacy. Without it, even a lawful conviction looks administrative rather than judicial.
The Rehearsed Verdict
Legal observers who compared the prosecution’s final address with the court’s reasoning found unsettling symmetry. Paragraphs appeared almost identical, conclusions repeated without analysis of defense exhibits. The language of accusation became the language of judgment. In that moment, authorship blurred: was the decision written by the bench or merely signed by it?
Courts are not expected to be sympathetic, but they must be skeptical. When skepticism disappears, prosecution becomes decree. The Supreme Court warned decades ago that “justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done.” Visibility demands differentiation—the court must sound different from those who seek conviction.
The Constitutional Cost of Spectacle
What happened in Abuja was not simply a procedural lapse; it was a constitutional casualty. The Supremacy Clause in Section 1(1) declares the Constitution binding on “all authorities and persons.” When a judge conducts a trial as performance rather than deliberation, that clause is breached in spirit if not in form. The price is public trust.
Judicial theater may entertain the state but it impoverishes the Republic. Once citizens believe that verdicts precede evidence, the moral currency of the judiciary collapses. Faith in law is not inherited; it is earned in every ruling that shows its working.
Reclaiming the Bench from the Script
The remedy lies not in rhetoric but in discipline. Every objection must receive a written decision. Every ruling must cite the authority that sustains it. Every judgment must show the intellectual distance between accusation and conviction. The National Judicial Council’s Code of Conduct demands these habits because procedure is substance in criminal law.
The Kanu trial should remind the judiciary that ceremony without scrutiny is the slow death of independence. The gown and gavel are symbols, but only reasoning confers legitimacy. To restore the bench to its constitutional stature, judges must again sound like thinkers, not narrators.
Justice is never a performance; it is a process. When courts forget that, verdicts may still echo in marble halls, but the Constitution stands outside, waiting to be let back in.
Professor MarkAnthony Ujunwa Nze is an acclaimed investigative journalist, public intellectual, and global governance analyst whose work shapes contemporary thinking at the intersection of health and social care management, media, law, and policy. Renowned for his incisive commentary and structural insight, he brings rigorous scholarship to questions of justice, power, and institutional integrity.
Based in New York, he serves as a full tenured professor and Academic Director at the New York Center for Advanced Research (NYCAR), where he leads high-impact research in governance innovation, strategic leadership, and geopolitical risk. He also oversees NYCAR’s free Health & Social Care professional certification programs, accessible worldwide at:
👉 https://www.newyorkresearch.org/professional-certification/
Professor Nze remains a defining voice in advancing ethical leadership and democratic accountability across global systems.
Bibliographies
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN). (2015). Abuja: Federal Government Printer.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. (2004). Abuja: Government Printer.
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended). (2023). Abuja: Government Printer.
Court of Appeal of Nigeria. (2019). Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Dasuki (CA/A/144C/2016). Abuja: Court of Appeal Reports.
Federal High Court of Nigeria. (2025). Certified True Copy of Judgment: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015). Abuja: Registry of the Federal High Court.
National Judicial Council (NJC). (2024). Judicial Discipline Regulations and Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers. Abuja: NJC Secretariat.
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). (2024). Annual Report on the State of Human Rights and Rule of Law in Nigeria 2024. Abuja: NHRC Publications.
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). (2025, February 14). Statement on Judicial Independence and Integrity in High-Profile Criminal Trials. Lagos: NBA Press Office.
Premium Times Nigeria. (2025, November 21). Analysis: What Justice Omotosho’s Handling of Nnamdi Kanu’s Case Reveals About Nigeria’s Judiciary. Retrieved from https://www.premiumtimesng.com
Supreme Court of Nigeria. (2007). Attorney-General of the Federation v. Atiku Abubakar & 3 Ors (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1.
Supreme Court of Nigeria. (2007). Obi v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565.
Transparency International Nigeria. (2024). Judicial Accountability and Procedural Integrity Index 2024. Abuja: TI-Nigeria Secretariat.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2016). General Comment No. 32: Right to Equality Before Courts and to a Fair Trial (Article 14, ICCPR). Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
World Justice Project. (2024). Rule of Law Index 2024 – Nigeria Country Profile. Washington, DC: World Justice Project.
