The American Veterans of Igbo Descent, AVID, an association of retired and serving United States military personnel of Igbo origin, has condemned what it described as “judicial travesty” in the ongoing trial of leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.
AVID, in a statement released on Thursday, declared that justice is on trial in the prosecution of the Biafra agitator.
The group’s reaction followed the ultimatum issued to Kanu to enter his defence, or waive the right to do so, by the Abuja Federal High Court presided by Justice James Omotosho.
Kanu had refused to enter a defence, insisting that the Nigerian government has no case against him. However, during Wednesday’s proceedings, the judge gave the IPOB an ultimatum to either enter his defence, or waive the right.
In a statement signed by its President, Chief Dr Sylvester Onyia, and made available to journalists in Umuahia, AVID declared that Kanu’s trial lacks legitimacy because he is being prosecuted without a valid law.
Kanu and his defence team are arguing that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, under which he was charged, had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022.
Parts of the statement read, “The American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) expresses grave concern and total condemnation of the continuing judicial travesty unfolding before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
“Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) is clear under Section 36(12) that no person shall be tried for any criminal offence unless that offence and its penalty are defined in a written law. This is a non-derogable constitutional safeguard, a cornerstone of due process, and a measure of any civilised nation’s commitment to justice.
“Yet, before the world and under Justice Omotosho’s watch, the Nigerian state persists in trying Mazi Nnamdi Kanu under a dead law — the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013 — which ceased to exist upon the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
“Justice Omotosho, contrary to the mandatory duty of judicial notice under Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, has refused to acknowledge this repeal. This is not a mere oversight; it is a judicial dereliction of constitutional duty.
“Justice Omotosho’s posture of ‘wait till judgment’ on questions of jurisdiction, double jeopardy, and validity of charge is the opposite of established precedents of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“Jurisdictional defects strike at the root of a case and must be determined forthwith, not deferred. No court, no matter how highly placed, can arrogate to itself jurisdiction it does not possess. The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022, specifically Section 76 (1)(d)(iii) demands that for any terrorism committed abroad such a act must also constitute an offence in the jurisdiction of the alleged occurrence — in this case, Kenya, where Mazy Nnamdi Kanu was abducted. This double criminality requirement has not been met, yet the judge insists on proceeding, this nullifying the moral and legal foundation of the entire trial.”
AVID expressed concern that Nigeria’s judicial institutions and lawyers have refused to condemn what it described as injustice and lack of fair hearing in Kanu’s trial.
“It is appalling that in the face of such manifest constitutional infidelity, Nigeria’s legal institutions — the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the National Judicial Council (NJC), and so-called legal analysts — have chosen cowardly silence. A nation whose lawyers fear to ask, ‘Under what law is this man being tried?’ has surrendered its conscience to tyranny.
“From the denial of access to lawyers and family in DSS custody to the judicial disregard of documentary evidence before the court, every element of a fair hearing has been destroyed in Justice Omotosho’s court,” the statement added.
Further faulting the trial, AVID noted that when Kanu, in court, asked for a five-minute recess in the judge’s chambers, he was rebuffed. “When he (Kanu) raised the profound constitutional question — ‘Under what law am I being tried?’ — Justice Omotosho retorted, ‘Wait till judgment.’ That a sitting Federal High Court judge can preside over a criminal trial without identifying a subsisting law is the ultimate indictment of Nigeria’s judicial decay.”
“The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in its present form, is not just a constitutional aberration but an affront to international human rights standards on fair trial and rule of law,” AVID declared, adding that Nigeria must choose between law and lawlessness.
AVID added that if Nigeria still claims to be a constitutional democracy, the government must immediately “halt the charade, restore the rule of law and release Mazi Nnamdi Kanu unconditionally”.
The group in the same vein called on the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United States Department of State, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the International Criminal Court to monitor and document “ongoing judicial abuses in Nigeria”.
