The judgment that closed Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu will long be remembered, not for its legal brilliance, but for its timidity. What unfolded in Justice James Kolawole Omotosho’s courtroom was not an act of judicial conviction but an exhibition of caution masquerading as law. The ruling did not silence controversy; it amplified the question every democracy must face: when the Constitution stands against power, who defends the Constitution?
Omotosho’s decision was the perfect study in restraint turned into abdication. It carried the syntax of legality but none of its substance. The courtroom decorum was impeccable, the citations precise, the tone judicially balanced but the soul of justice had gone missing.
Blueprint of a Foregone Verdict
When a trial is shaped by the logic of politics, its outcome becomes predictable. The prosecution’s narrative was accepted with minimal scrutiny, while the defense’s constitutional objections were dismissed as “technicalities.” Each procedural decision seemed small, each deferral or denial wrapped in formality but together they formed the scaffolding of a preordained conclusion.
The International Commission of Jurists (2023) describes this phenomenon as “the procedural domestication of executive will.” That phrase captures the rhythm of Omotosho’s courtroom. Every evidentiary ruling tilted toward convenience; every invocation of “national security” became a protective shield for the state, not the law.
In a genuine court of record, constitutional breaches such as extraordinary rendition and prolonged pre-trial detention would trigger institutional alarm. Here, they were politely acknowledged and quickly neutralized.
The Constitution That Stood Alone
Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended) guarantees liberty except by due process. Section 36 demands trial within a reasonable time and the right to full defense. These are not theoretical aspirations—they are the pillars of legality.
Yet Omotosho’s judgment treated these guarantees as negotiable. He read the Constitution not as command but as suggestion. When a court can accept a defendant’s presence obtained through an unlawful rendition as a valid basis for trial, it ceases to act as the guardian of law and becomes the custodian of expedience.
The African Bar Association (2024) was blunt in its assessment: “Nigeria’s judiciary has normalized political compliance through procedural formalism.” The statement could have been written for this very ruling.
The Politics of Judicial Prudence
Every autocracy wears the mask of legalism before it abandons law entirely. Nigeria’s judiciary has mastered the performance of legality while evading its demands. The Centre for Democracy and Development (2023) calls this “judicial prudence in the service of political stability.” That phrase defines Omotosho’s style. His decisions were carefully phrased to avoid open confrontation with the state, yet they collectively validated state overreach.
By cloaking submission in civility, the court achieved what raw repression could not—it lent political action the legitimacy of legal language. The ruling was therefore not a miscarriage of justice; it was the quiet domestication of judicial independence.
The National Judicial Council (2023) report noted “the subtle encroachment of executive influence through financial dependency and administrative discretion.” No one accused Omotosho of corruption. He did not need to be corrupt; the structure itself ensured compliance.
Read also: The Court That Crossed Its Own Line—Part 5
A Judiciary in Fear of Its Own Power
The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (2023) observed that Nigerian judges increasingly “self-censor in matters of national sensitivity to avoid political repercussions.” The Kanu trial demonstrated this pathology. The judiciary now governs itself not by the Constitution but by anxiety. The fear of consequence has become the new rule of conduct.
This is not mere speculation. The CLEEN Foundation (2022) study found that 70 percent of serving judges admitted to feeling institutional pressure in high-profile cases. They operate in a system where the executive controls salaries, housing, logistics, and even the physical security of the courts. Under such conditions, independence becomes an illusion, courage a liability.
Justice Omotosho did not invent this culture—he inherited it. But by yielding to it, he fortified it. His judgment was not just a personal failure; it was an institutional confession that the judiciary has accepted its subordinate role.
The Human Dimension of Legal Surrender
Every legal decision has a human face. In this case, it is Nnamdi Kanu’s. His continued detention under questionable circumstances is not a political abstraction but a lived reality. The Amnesty International (2023) report on national security trials documents the same pattern—extended detentions without conviction, charges rewritten mid-trial, and defense access curtailed.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (2019) reminds courts that “a trial cannot be fair where judicial independence is compromised by external influence.” Omotosho’s bench embodied that warning. His courtroom was neither overtly oppressive nor openly fair—it occupied the dead zone between legality and loyalty.
In that vacuum, rights ceased to be guarantees and became privileges dispensed by discretion.
The Death of Public Trust
What the law loses in integrity, society loses in faith. The Transparency International Nigeria (2023) judicial integrity index recorded a 17-point decline in public confidence. Nigerians now see the courts as extensions of political will rather than instruments of impartial justice.
Justice Omotosho’s ruling was emblematic of this decay. It was carefully written for the record but devoid of moral weight. The judiciary, once the last refuge for citizens against state excess, now appears as the last refuge for the state against accountability.
The Human Rights Watch (2024) report Justice Captured concluded that “Nigeria’s judiciary has transformed from an adjudicator of rights to a facilitator of power.” That transformation was fully visible in this case.
History’s Judgment
History rarely remembers the caution of judges. It remembers their courage. From Justice Kayode Eso’s fearless dissent to Justice Oputa’s insistence on moral clarity, Nigeria’s finest jurists were not defined by compromise but by conviction. Omotosho’s judgment stands at the opposite end of that tradition, a meticulously reasoned act of retreat.
The Open Society Justice Initiative (2020) once warned that “when courts privilege political stability over constitutional principle, they lose both.” Omotosho’s ruling has proven that prophecy true. Stability purchased at the expense of justice is counterfeit peace.
The Constitution survived the verdict, but its spirit did not.
Final Verdict – Law Without Conviction
The last gavel in this case did not signal justice done; it marked justice deferred. Justice Omotosho’s courtroom was quiet, dignified, and sterile. He spoke as a judge but ruled as a bureaucrat. The Constitution stood in his hand, yet he allowed power to write its meaning.
The Nigerian Bar Association (2024) warned that “a judiciary that trades courage for comfort cannot defend the rule of law.” That is the legacy this judgment leaves behind.
History will not remember the polish of his prose or the calm of his courtroom. It will remember the moment when the bench mistook silence for neutrality, and when the gavel fell, not as an assertion of justice, but as the echo of submission.
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
African Bar Association. (2024). Judicial independence and political interference in Nigeria’s national security trials. Lagos, Nigeria: AfBA Centre for Constitutional Governance.
Amnesty International. (2023). Nigeria: Unlawful detention and fair-trial violations in national security cases. London, United Kingdom: Amnesty International Secretariat.
Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD West Africa). (2023). Executive influence and judicial restraint in politically sensitive prosecutions in Nigeria. Abuja, Nigeria: CDD Publications.
CLEEN Foundation. (2022). Judicial accountability and the politics of national security in Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: CLEEN Foundation.
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended). (2023 rev. ed.). Abuja, Nigeria: Federal Government Printer.
Federal Ministry of Justice. (2021). Justice sector reform and fair-trial safeguards: Annual report 2021. Abuja, Nigeria: Justice Sector Coordination Office.
Human Rights Watch. (2024). Justice captured: The erosion of fair trial and judicial independence in Nigeria. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
International Commission of Jurists (Africa Regional Programme). (2023). Fair-trial guarantees and state security prosecutions in West Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: ICJ Africa.
National Judicial Council (NJC). (2023). Annual report on judicial discipline and independence in Nigeria. Abuja, Nigeria: NJC Secretariat.
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). (2024). Statement on judicial conduct and executive interference in national security cases. Abuja, Nigeria: NBA National Secretariat.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2022). Fair trial rights and judicial integrity in sub-Saharan Africa. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
Open Society Justice Initiative. (2020). Secrecy and due process: National security prosecutions and the right to a fair hearing in Nigeria. New York, NY: Open Society Foundations.
Premium Times Nigeria. (2025, November 21). From Mohammed to Omotosho: The four judges who handled Kanu’s case. Retrieved from https://www.premiumtimesng.com
Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC). (2023). Pressure on the bench: Executive influence and judicial behaviour in Nigeria’s federal courts. Lagos, Nigeria: RULAAC Publications.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2019). General Comment No. 36: Article 14 – Right to a fair trial and public hearing. Geneva, Switzerland: UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36.
