A legal practitioner, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has sharply criticized the conduct of proceedings before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, October 23, 2025, during the ongoing trial of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
In a statement titled “Summary Critique of What Happened in Court on 23 October 2025,” Ifedi alleged that what transpired in court was not a fair trial but “another episode of persecution” against the separatist leader.
Disregard for Appeal Court Judgment
According to Ifedi, the Federal Government remains in contempt of the Court of Appeal’s 2022 decision, which discharged and acquitted Kanu of all charges.
He stressed that the Supreme Court did not overturn that discharge but merely stated that the government could initiate a fresh trial if it so desired.
“The continued detention of Kanu despite the subsisting discharge order amounts to contempt of court,” Ifedi said, citing the case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson (1952), which establishes that a party in contempt cannot seek the court’s benefit until the contempt is purged.
Jurisdiction Challenge Ignored
Ifedi also faulted the court’s refusal to entertain Kanu’s objection to jurisdiction.
Kanu had reportedly told the court, “I will not be tried under a repealed, dead law,” referring to the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act 2013 and CEMA 2004, both repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
The lawyer argued that Justice Omotosho’s decision to defer ruling on jurisdiction until after the trial contradicted established legal principles, noting that a court must first determine its competence before proceeding.
Concerns Over Fair Hearing and Legal Access
Ifedi further alleged violations of Kanu’s constitutional right to fair hearing.
He claimed that the Department of State Services (DSS) has been monitoring and recording Kanu’s meetings with his legal team, undermining attorney-client confidentiality guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Rather than address this claim, the judge reportedly held that Kanu’s fair hearing would be exercised during his defence, a position Ifedi dismissed as “a distortion of due process.”
Dispute Over Medical Report
The statement also accused the court of overlooking an allegation of forgery involving a medical report submitted by the DSS.
Ifedi claimed that Kanu raised concerns about the report’s authenticity, but the judge declined to order an investigation, noting that the document had previously been accepted by former counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN).
According to Ifedi, such reliance on a contested report “sets a dangerous precedent and offends the integrity of the judiciary.”
Alleged Pattern of Bias
Summarizing the day’s proceedings, the lawyer alleged a recurring pattern of bias, asserting that:
The government remains in contempt of court orders but continues to be heard;
The judge declined to decide on jurisdiction;
The defendant’s access to counsel was compromised; and
A disputed medical report was upheld without scrutiny.
“This is not a trial; it is persecution disguised as procedure,” Ifedi said, insisting that the federal government must first comply with the appellate court’s discharge order.
He concluded:
“Until the government obeys the Court of Appeal and releases Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, no court has the moral or legal authority to continue this charade. You cannot break the law and then ask the law to protect you.”
#FreeMaziNnamdiKanuNow