The ongoing trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has continued to stir controversy, following fresh criticism from the American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID).
AVID, a U.S.-based advocacy group, has accused the court of undermining constitutional and fair-hearing standards in its handling of Kanu’s case, describing the process as a “continuing judicial travesty.”
In a statement signed by its President, Chief Dr. Sylvester Onyia, the group alleged that Kanu’s ongoing prosecution lacks a valid legal foundation and violates both domestic and international legal norms.
The statement referenced Section 36(12) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that no person shall be tried for an offence unless it is defined in a written law. AVID argued that the Federal Government is prosecuting Kanu under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, rather than the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which replaced it.
“The continued reliance on a repealed law to prosecute a citizen undermines due process and makes a mockery of Nigeria’s legal system,” AVID said.
The group also faulted Justice Omotosho for allegedly failing to take judicial notice of the repeal, insisting that such an omission constitutes a “serious constitutional breach.”
Legal observers note that this is not the first time questions of jurisdiction, double jeopardy, and fair hearing have dogged Kanu’s trial, which has drawn widespread attention both within and outside Nigeria.
AVID’s statement further accused the court of postponing rulings on key constitutional questions until final judgment, a move the group claimed contradicts established Supreme Court precedents.
“Jurisdictional issues strike at the root of any case and should be determined at the outset,” the group maintained.
The veterans’ group also raised concerns about alleged procedural irregularities, including restricted access to Kanu’s legal team and failure to consider documentary evidence presented before the court.
AVID called on international bodies — including the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the U.S. Department of State, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights — to monitor the trial and ensure compliance with international fair trial standards.
“This case has gone beyond Kanu; it speaks to Nigeria’s commitment to the rule of law and constitutional governance,” AVID said.
Meanwhile, judicial sources maintain that Justice Omotosho has continued to handle the matter in accordance with established procedure, noting that questions of law will be addressed in the final judgment phase. Government officials have also dismissed claims of bias, insisting that due process is being followed.
The renewed criticism underscores the enduring tension between state security interests and human rights advocacy surrounding Kanu’s prosecution — a case that continues to test Nigeria’s judicial integrity and international image.
