The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has condemned the judgment delivered on Thursday by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who sentenced the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment for alleged terrorism.

HURIWA pointed out what it considered as mistakes by Justice Omotosho, describing his judgement as a travesty of justice and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing.

The group in a statement by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, said that the ruling failed to address critical legal and constitutional questions raised by Kanu, particularly his objections that he was being tried under a repealed counter-terrorism law and that the court lacked the competence to proceed while related appeals were still pending before higher courts.

HURIWA said the judgment amounted to what it called “judicial haste, judicial avoidance, and judicial injustice,” insisting that “the court should have suspended its decision until the Court of Appeal resolved the outstanding jurisdictional and procedural disputes.” The association questioned why Justice Omotosho appeared determined to rush to judgment despite Kanu’s repeated insistence that fresh motions and notices had been filed at the appellate court challenging the legality of the trial, the non-existence of the charges, the refusal of the prosecution to respond to his applications, and the use of an already repealed law to frame the allegations against him.

According to court records referenced by the group, Kanu personally informed the judge that he had filed processes challenging the validity of the charges under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, which was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. He maintained that the charge sheet failed to disclose any existing written law as required under Section 36(12) of the Constitution, a defect he said vitiated the entire trial. HURIWA noted that despite these objections Justice Omotosho insisted at various points that he would go on to deliver judgment regardless of the pending matters, a posture the rights group described as judicial aggression against due process.

HURIWA criticised the court for refusing to address what it called the most fundamental issue in the case: why the Federal Government was prosecuting Kanu under a law that no longer exists. The group said nothing in Nigerian jurisprudence allows a criminal trial to stand where the charge is incompetent or based on an inoperative statute, adding that longstanding judicial authorities require courts to first resolve any questions touching on jurisdiction, constitutionality, and the validity of charges before proceeding to judgment.

The association further accused the court of violating Section 36 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing and adequate time and facilities for a defendant to prepare a defence. It said the ruling was inconsistent with established decisions such as Adeniyi v. State, which holds that jurisdictional objections must be resolved before trial; Deduwa v. Okorodudu, where the Supreme Court held that even a likelihood of unfairness vitiates proceedings; and Ogba v. State, which mandates courts to address all essential issues raised by an accused person before judgment is delivered.

HURIWA faulted the judge’s conclusion that Kanu deliberately refused to enter his defence, describing the claim as disingenuous and misleading. It explained that Kanu repeatedly stated he could not open his defence until the court determined the legality and competence of the charges, a stance the group said aligns with Nigerian criminal procedure principles. It argued that the exceptional circumstances of the case required judicial restraint, not speed, particularly given the unresolved appeals on extraordinary rendition, the legality of the charges, constitutional reference requests, and challenges to the validity of the charge sheet.

The rights organisation concluded that the judgment is fundamentally defective because the court failed to address the repealed-law issue, denied Kanu adequate opportunity to present his defence, proceeded despite pending appeals, and ignored established authorities on fair hearing and jurisdiction. It called on the National Judicial Council to review the conduct of the proceedings and urged the Court of Appeal to overturn what it described as a ruling that offends both the law and the conscience of the nation.