The Global Defence Consortium for Nnamdi Kanu, detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has accused the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, of denying Kanu a fair hearing during proceedings on October 24, 2025. The team cited multiple irregularities, asserting that the trial violates constitutional and international legal standards.
According to Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, Kanu informed the court that his legal team was disengaged a day prior, and as Thursday was a non-visitation day at the DSS facility where he is held, he could not access his legal files. His Special Counsel and brother, typically responsible for delivering materials, are reportedly detained. Kanu’s request for time to review his file, a right under Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, was dismissed as a delay tactic by the court.
Kanu also requested an increase in legal and medical consultation days from three to five weekly, which was granted, though the judge claimed Kanu failed to utilize prior consultation opportunities. The defence countered that three hours of consultation is insufficient for a capital offence trial, violating principles from Abacha v. State (2002). They further alleged that the DSS bugs Kanu’s lawyer-client conversations, breaching Sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution and UN principles on lawyer roles.
The team criticized Justice Omotosho’s admission of vacating the courtroom for Kanu’s lawyer meetings as evidence of a breached fair hearing, arguing that such a violation warrants halting proceedings, per Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) and Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989). They also noted the court’s failure to address a pending motion challenging its jurisdiction and an application to facilitate international defence witnesses from the US, UK, Kenya, and Ethiopia, suggesting deliberate obstruction.
When Kanu requested Certified True Copies of court transcripts for an appeal, the judge abruptly adjourned, called another case, and ordered Kanu to leave, an act the defence called a violation of open justice under Section 36(1). The team urged the public to recognize these procedural flaws, asserting that the trial undermines Kanu’s constitutional rights.
