By Steven Atokolo
The American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) has strongly condemned what it calls a “continuing judicial travesty” in the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), being overseen by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In a statement issued on Thursday, signed by its President, Chief (Dr.) Sylvester Onyia, AVID expressed “grave concern and total condemnation” over what it sees as the erosion of constitutional and judicial standards in Kanu’s case.
The group claimed the trial lacked legal foundation and violated both domestic and international principles of fair hearing.
AVID pointed to Section 36(12) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended), which explicitly states that no one should be tried for a criminal offense unless the offense and its penalty are clearly defined in written law.
The group stressed that this constitutional safeguard is a cornerstone of due process and a hallmark of any civilized nation’s commitment to justice.
The group specifically criticized the Nigerian government for continuing to prosecute Kanu under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, despite the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which replaced the earlier law.
AVID accused the Nigerian state of defying legal standards by prosecuting Kanu under a law that ceased to exist when the new legislation was enacted.
The statement also condemned Justice Omotosho for his refusal to acknowledge the repeal of the old law, despite it being a clear judicial duty under Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act.
AVID described this as a “judicial dereliction of constitutional duty” rather than a simple oversight.
Another key issue raised by AVID was Justice Omotosho’s decision to delay ruling on critical questions of jurisdiction and double jeopardy until after the final judgment.
AVID emphasized that jurisdictional issues are fundamental to the legitimacy of any trial and should be addressed before proceeding. They cited the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s precedents, which mandate that such matters be determined promptly.
AVID also pointed out the double criminality requirement outlined in the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which stipulates that an alleged act of terrorism must be an offense in both the country where it occurred and Nigeria. Since Kanu was allegedly abducted in Kenya, where there is no equivalent offense under Kenyan law, AVID argued that the trial is legally flawed.
The organization voiced concern over the apparent lack of response from Nigeria’s legal institutions, such as the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the National Judicial Council (NJC), in the face of what they described as “constitutional infidelity.”
AVID lamented that these institutions have remained silent, even as fundamental constitutional and legal principles are disregarded in Kanu’s trial.
Further, AVID decried the apparent destruction of every element of fair hearing guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the Constitution, including reports of Kanu being denied access to his lawyers and family members while in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).
The group cited an instance in court when Kanu’s request for a brief recess was denied, and when he questioned the validity of the law under which he was being tried, he was told to “wait till judgment.”
AVID also criticized the Nigerian judiciary for allowing Kanu to be tried under a non-existent law, calling it a reflection of the nation’s judicial decay.
The group described Justice Omotosho’s court as a “theater of constitutional absurdity,” where Kanu is forced to defend himself against a law that no longer exists.
In light of these issues, AVID called on international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the US Department of State, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to closely monitor Kanu’s trial, describing it as a violation of international standards on fair trials and the rule of law.
The organization concluded its statement by urging Nigeria to choose between upholding the law or descending into lawlessness.
They called on the government to immediately halt the trial, restore the rule of law, and release Nnamdi Kanu unconditionally, stating that the trial undermines Nigeria’s democratic values and judicial integrity.
*This piece was lifted verbatim from penmaster.com.ng, which first published it today .
*PHOTO CAPTION: File photo of Kanu (left) in court.
