The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, through its counsel, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has issued a strong statement urging Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, to hear and determine the Motion to Arrest Judgment before delivering any final ruling in the ongoing case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
The defence emphasized that the Motion to Arrest Judgment, filed on 10 November 2025, is a lawful and binding judicial process recognized under Nigerian criminal jurisprudence. It is designed to prevent a court from delivering judgment where jurisdictional or procedural defects remain unresolved. The motion, grounded in Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), upholds every citizen’s right to be heard before any decision affecting their rights is made.
According to the consortium, to “arrest” judgment is to compel the court’s obedience to the Constitution by ensuring that no decision is rendered in breach of the right to fair hearing. This principle is not a matter of discretion but a constitutional safeguard against miscarriage of justice. The defence stressed that fair hearing is a non-derogable right — the very foundation of justice — and cited the landmark Supreme Court case Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, where it was held that fairness lies in the opportunity to be heard before judgment is made.
The defence expressed concern that Justice Omotosho had indicated an intention to deliver judgment on 20 November 2025, despite the fact that several pending motions — including the Motion to Arrest Judgment — remain unheard. These motions challenge the court’s jurisdiction, the validity of the charge, and the competence of the plea entered on 29 March 2025. Proceeding to judgment under such circumstances, the defence argued, would amount to a legal nullity and defy the constitutional requirement of due process.
Addressing claims that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu “refused to enter his defence,” the consortium clarified that he has, in fact, entered his defence by cross-examining prosecution witnesses, thereby challenging the credibility of the government’s case. In law, cross-examination forms part of the defence’s evidentiary effort. Kanu, they said, is not obliged to call witnesses to defend against charges brought under a repealed law — the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 — which has been replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
The statement further warned that if Justice Omotosho proceeds to deliver judgment without first hearing the Motion to Arrest Judgment, such a decision would violate the constitutional right to fair hearing, render the judgment void ab initio, and place the court’s action outside its jurisdiction. Citing legal precedents such as Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and Newswatch v. Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144, the defence noted that any judgment delivered in defiance of a pending motion questioning jurisdiction would be legally worthless.
Beyond Kanu’s case, the consortium stated that this issue goes to the heart of Nigeria’s constitutional order. The Motion to Arrest Judgment, they said, is not a delay tactic but a necessary procedural safeguard meant to protect the judiciary from issuing judgments later declared void for constitutional violations.
The defence called on the Federal High Court to uphold the Constitution by hearing and determining the motion before any judgment is delivered. They also appealed to the Nigerian Bar Association to defend the sanctity of fair hearing, urged the media and civil society to promote accurate reporting, and called on the international community to monitor the situation closely, noting that the right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is non-derogable and binding.
The statement concluded that Justice Omotosho now stands at a defining moment — to either uphold the rule of law or risk setting a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial integrity. Until the Motion to Arrest Judgment is heard and determined, no valid judgment can be delivered in the case of FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, the consortium insisted.
Signed:
Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.
For: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
Abuja, Nigeria — 11 November 2025