The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, on Wednesday told the Appeal Court in Abuja that Judge James Omotosho did not afford him a fair trial and therefore should be stopped from delivering judgement on November 20, 2025.
In an application for a stay of further proceedings in his trial at the Federal High Court, Abuja, Kanu asked the Appeal Court to stop the court from delivering judgment on his case as scheduled.
“Its decision on the No Case Submission; its refusal to determine its jurisdiction and the validity of the counts under which the Appellant is being tried; its foreclosure of the Appellant’s right to defend the case by fielding witnesses.”
Kanu said that in spite of the jurisdictional questions raised before the Federal High Court, the trial court refused to rule on them.
He noted that it is in the interest of justice to grant his application and allow the matter to be taken on the merits.
He added that “If the application is not granted, the Appellant may be unlawfully convicted without being afforded the opportunity of knowing the validity of the counts, the jurisdiction of the trial court and offering defence on the merit.”
The IPOB leader prayed for “An Order staying the proceedings of the trial court in Case No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria VS. Nnamdi Kanu currently pending before Justice James K. Omotosho pending the, hearing and determination of the appeal pending against its decisions in the case, particularly on:
“Its decision on the No Case Submission; its refusal to determine its jurisdiction and the validity of the counts under which the Appellant is being tried; its foreclosure of the Appellant’s right to defend the case by fielding witnesses.”
According to Kanu, in spite of the jurisdictional questions raised before the Federal High Court, the trial court refused to rule on them.
“The trial court refused to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis the cross-examination questions to determine whether the evidence was discredited under cross examination.
“Though the Appellant file list of witnesses to be called in defence of the case and indicated that the Appellant’s defence would come up and the Appellant fields witnesses immediately the Court determines its jurisdiction and the validity of the counts, the trial court refused and held that the decision would only be given on the objections during judgment,” he stated.
Kanu stressed, “The trial court, while refusing to rule on the objection, foreclosed the Appellant’s right to defend the heinous allegations levelled against the Appellant. The trial court has adjourned the matter for judgment on the 20th of November, 2025.
“If the application is not granted, the Appellant may be unlawfully convicted without being afforded the opportunity of knowing the validity of the counts, the jurisdiction of the trial court and offering defence on the merit.”
He added, “Further proceedings on the matter will stultify the Appellant’s right of appeal and any appellate decision fait accompli.
“The trial court and the Appellant would not be prejudiced if the application is granted, the case having been prolonged since the year 2015, only to commence before the instant court sometime in this year 2025.”
cpcnews.org 