A legal practitioner, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has alleged that the trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, before Justice James Omotosho was a “pre-determined conviction” rather than a fair trial.
Chidera made the claim in a widely circulated statement titled “It Was Never a Trial — It Was a Pre-Determined Conviction”, in which he accused the presiding judge of allegedly altering procedures mid-trial in a manner he said denied the defendant fair hearing.
What the lawyer alleged
According to the lawyer, entries in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of court proceedings showed that:
On 4 November 2025, the judge allegedly ruled that certain motions filed by the defence would be determined at the stage of final written addresses.
However, on 20 November 2025, the judge was quoted as saying that all preliminary objections would instead be taken during the delivery of judgment.
Chidera argued that the two recorded statements were contradictory and resulted in the defendant allegedly being denied the opportunity to address the court, insisting that such a situation amounted to “procedural deceit” and “collapsed the adversarial process.”
He further claimed that once the issues were reserved to be taken only during judgment, “conviction became inevitable,” insisting that the process, as recorded, showed that the defendant was “marked for conviction long before judgment was delivered.”
Constitution cited
The lawyer also cited Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which provides for delivery of judgment after evidence and final addresses, arguing that the alleged procedural shift violated constitutional safeguards.
He said the development, in his view, went beyond Kanu’s case and raised broader questions about fair hearing, judicial conduct, and due process.
No judicial response yet
As of the time of filing this report:
Justice James Omotosho has not publicly responded to the allegations.
The court and prosecution authorities have also not issued any official reaction.
Important note
The claims reported above are allegations made by Barrister Christopher Chidera. They have not been independently verified, and no finding of misconduct has been made against the judge by any competent authority.
The matter is expected to continue generating legal and public debate, especially as appeal processes relating to the case remain active.