By CHARLES IWUOHA

The defence team of leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has raised the alarm over the refusal of the Abuja Federal High Court to hear motions challenging its jurisdiction to prosecute him.

A member of the defence team, Barrister Christopher Chidera, Esq., raised the alarm in a statement issued on Monday.

The defence team asserted that the court's persistent refusal to hear threshold jurisdictional motions in the Nnamdi Kanu trial is a direct assault on the Constitution and 63 years of binding Supreme Court precedents.

"The Nigerian public, the international community, and all lovers of the rule of law are placed on red alert. In Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 (FRN v. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu), Justice James T. Omotosho has shut his eyes and ears to two properly filed, duly served, and constitutionally unassailable motions that go to the very root of the court’s jurisdiction:

"Motion to Arrest Judgment (filed 10 November 2025) – brought pursuant to Section 259 ACJA 2015.

Flagship Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction (filed 11 November 2025) – raising prosecution under repealed statutes, extraordinary rendition without extradition, double jeopardy, contempt of the Court of Appeal’s 13 October 2022 discharge order, and serial violations of fair hearing.

"The prosecution has filed zero response in two months and one full week respectively. The judge has fixed no date for hearing. Instead, he has repeatedly ruled that all jurisdictional objections must wait until the Final Written Address – a position that is not merely wrong; it is judicial heresy," the statement said.

Citing legal precedents, the defence team noted that motions that concern jurisdiction must be taken first in any trial.

"For over sixty-three years, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has spoken with a single, uninterrupted, authoritative voice:

When jurisdiction is challenged, the court must stop and determine it immediately. Nothing else can lawfully proceed.

"In Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, the Supreme Court laid the eternal foundation of Nigerian procedural law: jurisdiction is the root and foundation of adjudication; without it, every proceeding is a nullity ab initio.

"The Supreme Court repeated the command with force in A-G Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552, holding that once jurisdiction is challenged, the court is bound to down tools and resolve the issue before taking any procedural or substantive step.

"Again, in Okorocha v. Uba (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1802) 206, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is to be determined first in time and first in priority, and that trying to defer it is both unconstitutional and procedurally incompetent. Similarly, in SLB Consortium v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317, the Supreme Court described jurisdiction as “radical,” warning that any attempt to postpone its determination is fatal to the entire proceedings.

"The apex court in Duru v. Nwosu (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24 condemned the act of deferring a jurisdictional challenge as a “grave and fundamental error” that vitiates all subsequent proceedings. In Obasanjo v. Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 877) 144, the Supreme Court reiterated that a trial court is duty-bound to first determine whether it has jurisdiction before it can lawfully take any step whatsoever.

"The Court of Appeal has been no less categorical. In Olori Motors v. UBN (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 554) 492, the appellate court held that any proceeding conducted while a jurisdictional challenge is pending is a complete nullity. In FRN v. Fani-Kayode (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1214) 481, the Court of Appeal held that even post-conviction jurisdictional motions must be heard and determined before judgment is delivered, underscoring the absolute priority of jurisdiction.

"In NDIC v. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272, the Court of Appeal went further still, holding that a court cannot lawfully proceed “one more inch” until jurisdiction is resolved," the statement added.

According to the defence team, there is an unbroken constitutional principle which stipulated that when the competence of the court or of the charge is challenged, the law imposes an immediate, mandatory, and non-discretionary duty on the judge to stop and determine the issue.

"There is no discretion. There is no wait until final address. Justice Omotosho’s refusal is therefore not an exercise of discretion—it is a flagrant violation of the supreme law of judicial process," the defence team argued.

Accusing the prosecution of complicity in the matter, the defence team disclosed that Federal Government lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, and the Federal Ministry of Justice were served with the jurisdiction motions on 11 November 2025.

"Seven days later, there is no counter-affidavit, no written address, and no attempt to defend the legality of their own charge. This is not negligence.

This is a calculated gamble that the court will ignore the law, ignore the motions, and deliver a conviction under a statute that was repealed three years ago," the statement said.

The court has fixed November 20, 2025 to deliver judgment in Kanu's trial.

The defence team warned of the consequences of delivering judgment without hearing the motions.

The statement said, "If Justice Omotosho proceeds to judgment without hearing the two pending motions, the judgment will be a certified constitutional nullity. It will be set aside instanter by the Court of Appeal.

It will expose the trial judge to disciplinary sanctions for denying fair hearing and pronouncing judgment “over silence". It will inflict severe damage on Nigeria’s international legal credibility."

The defence team noted that no Nigerian is safe if a court can ignore jurisdiction, "ignore repealed laws, ignore binding appellate decisions, and ignore the defendant simply because the case is politically sensitive".