A Verdict Against Justice: How the Omotosho Judgment Betrays Due Process in the Case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

The INJUSTICE OF OMOTOSHO'S JUDGEMENT AGAINST MAZI NNAMDI KANU AND SENTENCING — AND THE FURTHER INJUSTICE OF THE DELIBERATE FRUSTRATION OF HIS APPEAL PROCESS

The case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has become a defining measure of Nigeria’s fidelity to justice, constitutionalism, and human rights—a true litmus test of the nation’s commitment to the rule of law. Instead of upholding these foundational principles, Justice Omotosho’s ruling and sentencing against him have exposed deep-rooted judicial compromise, political interference, and a troubling contempt for due process. His judgment represents not only a stark deviation from the standards of a fair trial but also a profound indictment of the judiciary’s vulnerability to political pressure. What makes this injustice even more alarming is what followed: a deliberate, systematic, and intentional frustration of Kanu’s constitutional right to appeal—a right guaranteed by the Constitution but weaponized against him. This calculated obstruction deepens the stain on Nigeria’s justice system and raises serious questions about the nation’s adherence to democratic norms and fundamental rights.

A Judgment Rooted in Bias, Not Law

Justice Omotosho’s ruling against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has been widely condemned as legally flawed, disproportionately harsh, and fundamentally misaligned with constitutional guarantees. Rather than grounding his judgment in evidence, jurisprudence, and established legal precedent, the court adopted a punitive posture that appeared designed to legitimize the executive’s earlier extrajudicial actions—including the kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of Kanu from Kenya. This extraordinary rendition, a blatant violation of both Nigerian law and international conventions, was glaringly ignored by the court. Instead of confronting this illegality, the judgment treated it as irrelevant, signaling that the state may violate its own laws with impunity. The result is a decision that is not only legally weak and inconsistent with precedent, but also unmistakably influenced by political motivations, further undermining the credibility of Nigeria’s justice system.

Such actions contravene international law. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights—domesticated into Nigerian law—prohibits arbitrary arrest, torture, and unlawful transfer. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has previously recognized that where the state violates its own procedures in bringing a defendant to court, the legitimacy of the trial itself may be compromised. Yet, in Kanu’s case, these monumental breaches were tactically ignored, as though human dignity and due process were optional elements of justice.

Weaponizing the Court Against a Citizen

The severity of Omotosho’s sentencing further exposes a judicial system increasingly weaponized to crush dissent. Mazi Kanu’s case should have been an opportunity for Nigeria to showcase impartial justice—proof that even the most controversial defendants deserve the protection of the law. Instead, it became a stage for selective interpretation of statutes, overreach of judicial power, and implicit endorsement of executive aggression.

This form of judicial activism—aligned not with justice, but with state interests—poses long-term danger. When courts cease to serve as the bulwark between citizens and the unchecked power of the state, tyranny is not merely possible; it is inevitable.

Appeal Frustration: The Insidious Second Layer of Injustice

If the trial court judgment was the first injustice, the deliberate obstruction of Kanu’s appeal is the second—and perhaps even more damaging.

Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees every convicted person the right to appeal. It is not a privilege that can be granted or withheld at will; it is a pillar of the rule of law. Yet, through bureaucratic sabotage, unexplained delays, procedural roadblocks, and intentional misplacement of case files, the system has acted in concert to frustrate Kanu’s appeal.

Such obstruction is not only unethical; it is illegal. It violates:

• Section 36(7) of the Nigerian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to appeal;

• The African Charter, guaranteeing effective legal remedies; and

• Universal principles of natural justice.

A judiciary that delays justice intentionally is as guilty of injustice as one that delivers a flawed judgment.

A Dangerous Precedent for the Country

When the courts bend to political pressure, the danger extends beyond the immediate victim. Every Nigerian becomes vulnerable. Today it is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu; tomorrow it may be any citizen who falls out of favor with the powerful.

The repercussions are profound:

• Erosion of public confidence in the judiciary

• Heightened political tension in the Southeast

• Loss of moral authority for Nigeria in international human rights discourse

• Fueling of extremism and instability, as denial of justice often leads to desperation

A Call for Remedies and Accountability

To restore the integrity of the judiciary and reaffirm the sanctity of Nigeria’s constitutional order, the following must occur:

1. Immediate removal of all obstacles impeding Kanu’s right to appeal.

2. A full judicial review of Justice Omotosho’s judgment.

3. Accountability for officials who have deliberately sabotaged due process.

4. Reaffirmation of Nigeria’s obligations under international law.

Justice delayed is justice denied—but justice manipulated is justice destroyed.

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case stands today as a glaring reminder that a nation cannot claim to be governed by law while permitting injustice to flourish in its courts. Nigeria must choose: protect the integrity of its judiciary or continue down a path where the law becomes merely an instrument of the powerful.

Only one of these paths leads to justice, peace, and national stability.