By PAMELA EBOH, Awka

A human rights group under the umbrella of #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu has expressed profound concern over Friday’s ruling by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, to the effect that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained Leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), “has to explain certain things in his broadcasts.”

But, the group in a statement signed by a Human Rights Lawyer and Public Advocate, Christopher Chidera insisted that the decision departs sharply from established legal principles and underscores a troubling trend of prioritizing executive interests over justice in Nigeria’s courts.

On the sub heading, “Misapplication of the Law on No-Case Submissions”, the group said, “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.

“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.”

Highlighting “Charges Based on a Repealed Law”, #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu group added: “Equally alarming is Justice Omotosho’s failure to address the prosecution’s reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.

“Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 obliges courts to take judicial notice of repealed laws.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.”

While describing the ruling as a grave violation of constitutional safeguards which will hitherto set a dangerous precedent for fair trial rights, it noted that collectively, the errors reveal a disturbing pattern.

#FreeMaziNnamdiKanu observed that the judiciary in Abuja appears more committed to sustaining a politically motivated trial than upholding justice.

The group added: "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.”

#FreeMaziNnamdiKanu called on the public to urgently call for the Court of Appeal to swiftly review and rectify these egregious legal errors, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate recurring lapses in judicial adherence to law and due process in this case.

The group equally called on 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.”

It added: "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.”