Senior lawyers have expressed sharply divided views on last week’s conviction and life imprisonment of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Kanu was convicted on terrorism charges after a decade-long trial that spanned multiple judges and featured several legal and political controversies. The judgment by Justice James Omotosho delivered, typed, and released within 24 hours has triggered intense national debate on the fairness of the process and its wider constitutional implications.
Kanu Raises Alarm in Open Letter
In an open letter to Nigerians on Tuesday, Kanu accused the Federal Government of manipulating judicial processes to keep him detained since his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021.
He cited past court decisions that ruled his arrest and detention unlawful, faulted the proscription of IPOB through an ex parte order, and alleged a pattern of bias and disregard for constitutional safeguards in the handling of his case.
Kanu insisted he would not submit to any trial before a judge whose jurisdiction he considers defective, saying: “If it will take the rest of my life in detention to produce me before a proper and impartial court, so be it.”
Edun, SAN: Judge Ensured Fair Hearing
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Wale Edun, defended the court’s decision, describing the ruling as the product of a thorough and transparent process.
He said Justice Omotosho gave Kanu “more latitude than any defendant in recent memory,” including repeated adjournments to allow him secure counsel after dismissing his lawyers.
Edun argued that by refusing to open his defence, Kanu legally rested his case on the prosecution. He added that although the judiciary had done its job, the Federal Government could still consider political solutions through the Prerogative of Mercy.
Opara, SAN: Kanu Should Not Have Defended Himself
Another SAN, Victor Opara, adopted a neutral stance but faulted Kanu’s decision to represent himself.
He said terrorism charges require expert legal defence and stressed that Section 349(6) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act prohibits self-representation in capital offences.
According to him, once Kanu’s legal team withdrew, the court should have assigned counsel through the Legal Aid Council or the Nigerian Bar Association. He maintained that the appellate court will determine whether this procedural issue affects the conviction.
Ufeli: Judgment Has No Legal Foundation
Human-rights lawyer, Evans Ufeli, strongly criticised the ruling, insisting that it is “legally defective.”
He argued that the terrorism law under which Kanu was charged lacked statutory validity at the material time, adding that there was no concrete evidence linking him to acts of violence.
Ufeli said the court also failed to rule on a jurisdictional objection, which, in his view, invalidates the entire proceedings. He described the conviction as one “built on nothing” and predicted it would not survive appeal.
Ojo: Sentence Is a Political Compromise
Public law expert, Gbenga Ojo, described the judgment as a “policy decision” aimed at balancing national security with political stability.
He said offences of this nature typically attract the death penalty, but the court imposed life imprisonment to leave room for political reconciliation and possible future pardon.
Ojo insisted that allowing Kanu to go untried would have set a dangerous precedent, but urged the government to “temper justice with mercy.”
