In a bold opinion piece, legal scholar Charles O. Chukwunaru argues that Justice James Omotosho’s recent verdict condemning Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment is less a lawful conviction and more a politically motivated judgment — a “victory” of state power over justice.
Chukwunaru contends that the trial was rife with procedural and legal inconsistencies. Central to his critique is the use of the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013, which, according to the defence, was already repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. He cites Kanu’s defence team and civil society groups who have challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that only an existing written law can support a conviction.
Chukwunaru also highlights Kanu’s refusal to present a formal defence, which led to his removal from the courtroom. Rather than view this as a waiver, he suggests the court mischaracterized Kanu’s insistence on resolving key legal objections as defiance.
Moreover, the writer draws parallels between this case and past legal persecutions, noting that critics like Omoyele Sowore allege the conviction was part of a pre-written political directive under the Tinubu administration. He warns that the judgment risks undermining the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary and could deepen political divisions, especially in the South-East.
Chukwunaru concludes that while the court may have imposed a “legal” sentence, the broader consequence is the erosion of trust in the rule of law. He calls on higher courts to not just review the verdict, but to restore constitutional justice and affirm that legal process cannot be sacrificed on the altar of politics.