The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has strongly condemned the ruling of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who declared on Friday that its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, will “need to explain certain things” in his ongoing trial.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, dismissed the no-case submission filed by the IPOB leader.

Justice Omotosho, in his ruling, held that the Department of State Services (DSS) has made out a prima facie case against Kanu.

He accordingly ordered Kanu to enter his defence, as the prosecution has been able to convince the court without reasonable doubt that he has a case to answer in the alleged terrorism charge brought against him by the Federal Government.

Justice Omotosho held that the evidence presented by the Department of State Services through its five witnesses was such that there was a need for Kanu to provide some explanations in the charge brought against him.

This is just as a Human Rights Lawyer & Public Advocate, Christopher Chidera, also faulted the ruling, saying the decision departed sharply from established legal principles and underscores a troubling trend of prioritizing executive interests over justice in Nigeria’s courts.

Reacting to the development in a press statement released on Saturday, the IPOB’s Spokesman, Emma Powerful, said the judiciary must stop the “charade” of shifting the burden onto the pro-Biafran leader, whose only “crime” is demanding self-determination for his people.

The statement read in part, “IPOB strongly condemned the ruling of Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who declared that the defendant will need to explain certain things in his ongoing trial.”

“We ask Justice Omotosho directly to explain certain things, like does he not know that Section 36(11) of the Nigerian Constitution forbids compelling any defendant to testify against himself?”

“Does the judge not understand that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, not on the accused?”

“Is Justice Omotosho suggesting that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should fill the gaps in a case built on contradictory witnesses, absence of investigation reports, and reliance on a repealed law?

“This remark exposes the reality of Abuja courts: their first duty is not to justice, but to the government. By demanding that our Leader “explain,” Justice Omotosho is not applying the law; he is aiding persecution.”

“We remind the world that IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stand on the side of truth and international law. The Nigerian judiciary must stop this charade of shifting the burden onto an innocent man whose only “crime” is demanding self-determination for his people.”

Also reacting in the same vein, a human rights lawyer, Chidera, said the court’s decision is a grave violation of constitutional safeguards and sets a dangerous precedent for fair trial rights.

He said, “We express profound concern over Justice Omotosho’s ruling at the Federal High Court, Abuja, declaring that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has to explain certain things in his broadcasts.

“This decision departs sharply from established legal principles and underscores a troubling trend of prioritizing executive interests over justice in Nigeria’s courts.”

“Misapplication of the Law on No-Case Submissions. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 mandates that a no-case submission requires a court to evaluate both the charge and the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.”

“Justice Omotosho’s ruling, however, fixated solely on the charge sheet, disregarding the prosecution’s evidence, which collapsed under cross-examination due to glaring inconsistencies.”

According to him, this approach defies Supreme Court precedents, which require judges to assess whether prosecution witnesses have been sufficiently discredited. By sidestepping this duty, the court undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Charges Based on a Repealed Law. Equally alarming is Justice Omotosho’s failure to address the prosecution’s reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.

“Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 obliges courts to take judicial notice of repealed laws. Prosecuting under a defunct statute is not a mere technicality—it renders the entire case a legal nullity.”

“This oversight calls into question the court’s jurisdiction and its commitment to the rule of law. Violation of Constitutional Protections Section 36(11) of the Nigerian Constitution unequivocally protects against self-incrimination, ensuring no accused person is compelled to prove their innocence.

“By ruling that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has a case to answer,” despite the absence of a credible investigation report or substantive evidence, the court improperly shifts the burden of proof onto the accused.

“This is a grave violation of constitutional safeguards and sets a dangerous precedent for fair trial rights. Executive overreach in the judiciary collectively reveals a disturbing pattern: the judiciary in Abuja appears more committed to sustaining a politically motivated trial than upholding justice. Courts must serve as impartial arbiters, not as instruments of executive will.

“This ruling erodes public confidence in Nigeria’s judicial system and its adherence to due process,” he added.

He further called on the Court of Appeal to swiftly review and rectify these egregious legal errors, urging the Nigerian Bar Association and National Judicial Council to investigate recurring lapses in judicial adherence to law and due process in this case.

“The international community and human rights organizations to monitor Nigeria’s ongoing violations of fair trial standards under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

“A trial founded on a repealed law, unsupported by credible evidence, and demanding the accused disprove the prosecution’s case is not justice—it is a mockery of the rule of law. Justice Omotosho’s ruling serves not the cause of fairness but the agenda of executive theatre cloaked in judicial authority,” he added. (The PUNCH)