Uchechi Okwu-Kanu Condemns Justice Omotosho’s Ruling as “Illegal, Biased, and Destined for Collapse”
United Kingdom – 21 November 2025
Mrs. Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, wife of unlawfully detained IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has released a strongly worded public breakdown of Justice Omotosho’s recent judgment, describing it as “illegal, biased, and useless in law.”
Her analysis, presented in plain language for the public, accuses the judge of violating fundamental constitutional principles and deliberately sidestepping issues that go to the heart of the case.
In her detailed critique, Okwu-Kanu highlighted ten major failures she said render the judgment void.
1. He Refused To First Decide Whether He Even Had Power To Try The Case
According to her, the judge refused to determine whether the court had the legal authority to hear the case, a mandatory first step in any criminal trial.
She argued that by ignoring the jurisdiction challenge, “everything done afterward is worthless,” accusing the judge of intentionally evading a ruling that could have halted the trial entirely.
Recall, that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu had on October 27, 2025 challenged the jurisdiction of the court of Justice James Omotosho to try him, insisting that the entire process was built on illegalities and political persecution, challenging the prosecution to name the law under which he is being tried.
In his response to Kanu’s jurisdictional challenge, Justice James Omotosho directed him to file a written address, outlining his argument.
On October 30, Kanu filed the written address as requested by the court, it is therefore surprising that the judge refused to attend to this very fundamental aspect. As Lolo Uchechi Okwu-Kanu described it, “Before any court can try a criminal case, it must first answer the question of jurisdiction.”
2. He Told Kanu To Put All Objections In A Final Address – Then Blocked The Final Address
Okwu-Kanu described the judge’s conduct as “outright trickery.”
She said Justice Omotosho instructed Kanu “Don’t raise jurisdiction now. Put it in your final written address,” only to later block the filing of those same final addresses and issue judgment without hearing them.
In a constitutional democracy, a judge cannot demand that objections be presented in a specific format and then prevent that format from being submitted, it raises grave concerns about judicial fairness.
Such conduct calls into question the legality of the entire process and strengthens public perception that the outcome may have been predetermined.
“This is denial of fair hearing in its purest form,” she wrote.
3. He Refused To Issue Written Rulings On Serious Applications
She accused the judge of refusing to issue written rulings on major applications, including those concerning Kanu’s extraordinary rendition, repealed laws, double criminality, and invalid charges, an omission she said violates basic judicial standards.
By refusing to deliver written rulings, the judge also violated constitutional expectations of transparency, and also denied both the defence and the public a clear record of how these fundamental legal questions were evaluated.
The omission is widely seen as intentional. It strongly suggests that the judge was fully aware that properly addressing those objections could have compelled her to reach a legal outcome she was determined to avoid.
In other words, the failure to issue written decisions appears less like an oversight and more like a strategic silence, a calculated move to sidestep rulings that could have collapsed the prosecution’s case entirely. “Nigerian law is very clear. This alone makes the judgment illegal,” Okwu-Kanu stated.
4. He Forced Kanu To Take A Plea Under A Repealed Law
She accused the court of forcing Kanu to take a plea under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act of 2013, despite the law being replaced by the 2022 Act.
“The charges brought against Kanu were based on a law that no longer exists (the old Terrorism Act of 2013). The new 2022 Act replaced it.”
A statute that no longer had any legal force or relevance. “The judge knew the old law was dead; she simply refused to acknowledge the repeal,” she said, pointing to what appear to be a very obvious ridicule of the Nigerian constitution.
It suggests a willingness to ignore established legal realities, sidestep constitutional protections, and impose obligations on the defendant that the law itself has already discarded.
Charging anyone under a “dead law,” she wrote, “is illegal and void.”
5. He Ignored The Constitution’s Requirement That No One Can Be Convicted Under An “Unwritten” Or Unknown Offence
She accused the judge of inserting fictitious claims, such as alleging that Kanu plotted to bomb the U.S. and U.K. embassies, despite such allegations never appearing in the charges, evidence, or witness testimony.
“A judge is not allowed to invent evidence,” she said.
This is the bedrock principle of legality – nullum crimen sine lege – and it protects every citizen from arbitrary punishment.
Yet, according to her, Justice Omotosho completely disregarded this constitutional safeguard.
Instead of relying strictly on the charges before him and the evidence presented in open court, the judge Introduced allegations that were never in the charge sheet, relied on “facts” that no witness ever testified to, and inserted accusations that neither the prosecution nor any document in the case ever mentioned.
“This is pure fiction. A judge is not allowed to invent evidence,” she stated.
6. He Put A “Savings Clause” Above The Constitution
She argued that Justice Omotosho committed a fundamental legal error by elevating a mere “savings clause” in the new terrorism law above the Nigerian Constitution, an action no court is empowered to take.
The judge relied on a provision in the amended Terrorism Prevention Act that loosely states that “old cases may continue.” But this clause cannot, under any circumstance, resurrect a law that the National Assembly has formally repealed. In constitutional law, the rules are clear:
“A savings clause cannot override the Constitution.”
“A repealed law stays repealed,” it has no force, no life, and no legal effect.
“You cannot continue a case under a law that no longer exists.”
What the court did, she said, was legally impossible: it attempted to breathe life into a dead law, and then used that resurrected ghost-law as the foundation of its judgment.
No court is permitted to override constitutional supremacy. No judge is allowed to treat a repealed law as if it still exists. And no judicial officer can lawfully elevate a subordinate statute above the Constitution simply to preserve a specific outcome.
In doing so, Justice Omotosho not only violated constitutional principles but also undermined the very structure of Nigeria’s legal order. A total misuse of the ‘savings clause.’
7. He Avoided The Issue Of “Double Criminality” Even Though It Is Essential
She noted that Justice Omotosho deliberately sidestepped one of the most fundamental principles governing transnational crimes and cross-border allegations: “double criminality”.
“Since the government claimed Kanu committed crimes in Kenya, the law requires the court to first check” the following before any Nigerian court can assume jurisdiction:
- “Is the alleged act a crime in the country where it was supposedly committed, in this case, Kenya?”
- “Did Kenya provide any evidence whatsoever to substantiate those claims?”
She stated that the answers were glaring as there was “No evidence from Kenya, No Kenyan police report, No Kenyan witness, Nothing”
Without any of these, the principle of double criminality collapses. If Kenya has not accused Kanu of any crime, has not investigated him, and has not provided evidence, Nigeria cannot simply invent Kenyan offences and use them to justify prosecution.
Yet, instead of addressing this crucial jurisdictional question, which directly determines whether the case can proceed at all, “the judge ran away from this issue completely.”
He did not analyze it. He did not rule on it. He did not even acknowledge it.
By running away from this central requirement, she argues, the judge stripped the court of the legal foundation needed to try the allegations in the first place. “This means the court had no power to try Kanu on those allegations”
8. His Judgement Is Automatically Useless Because He Denied Fair Hearing
She stressed that, under Nigerian law, the principle of “fair hearing” is absolute and non-negotiable.
It is the single most important ingredient of any legitimate trial. The moment a judge denies a party the right to present objections or address the court, the entire proceeding collapses, automatically and irreversibly.
“The law is very simple: If a judge refuses to let you raise your objections, or refuses to let you address the court, everything he does afterward is null and void”
It does not matter how long the trial lasted. It does not matter how many witnesses testified. It does not matter how many pages the judgment contains. Without fair hearing, the entire process is deemed invalid, as if the trial never took place.
Her conclusion was blunt: because the judge denied fair hearing, the judgment is legally worthless, void from beginning to end “It’s as if the trial never happened.”
9. He Added False Stories About Bombing Us/Uk Missions – Stories That Never Came From Any Evidence
She described one of the most disturbing aspects of Justice Omotosho’s judgment: the introduction of a completely fabricated narrative alleging that Kanu planned to bomb the United States and United Kingdom embassies during the EndSARS protests.
“He inserted a narrative about bombing foreign embassies:
Not charged. Not alleged. Not testified to. Not part of any document. Not supported by any witness. Not part of the case at all.”
No one, not the police, not the DSS, not the prosecutors, not a single witness, ever uttered or filed anything remotely connected to such an accusation.
It appeared only in the judge’s judgment, introduced from nowhere.
This, she argued, is “judicial misconduct of the highest order.”
A judge is constitutionally required to base decisions solely on evidence presented in open court. The moment a judge begins inventing allegations, inserting fictional plots, or relying on claims not brought by either party, he ceases to act as an impartial arbiter and instead becomes a participant, even an architect, of the prosecution’s case.
This aligns with the accusation made by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on Thursday where he had accused Justice Omotosho of not only being the judge but also being the prosecutor.
By fabricating an explosive allegation to justify his ruling, Justice Omotosho:
- Violated the rules of evidence
- Abandoned judicial neutrality
- Undermined the integrity of the court
- And produced a judgment tainted beyond repair
Critics argue that such level of fabrication of sensitive National Security claims is very troubling, and indicative of the lack of awareness of responsibility, and that he should be held accountable for making such allegations.
In any proper legal system, a judge who manufactures evidence to support a conviction would face serious disciplinary consequences. It is a breach that not only nullifies the judgment but calls into question the legitimacy of the entire trial.
“A judge is not allowed to make up stories to justify a conviction,” she stated.
10. In summary: The judgement Collapses Completely
Summarizing her position, Okwu-Kanu said when you strip the ruling down to its essence, the judgment of Justice Omotosho fails on every critical front, and therefore cannot stand.
She insisted the following:
- The judge didn’t follow the law
- He didn’t follow the Constitution
- He didn’t follow due process
- He refused to rule on important issues
- He used a dead law
- He invented evidence
- He blocked the defendant’s right to speak
- He delivered a judgment that cannot stand
Therefore:
- The judgment is worthless.
- It is illegal.
- It will not survive appeal.
- It exposes the judge to disciplinary action.
“The judgment is worthless. It is illegal. It will not survive appeal,” she concluded, adding that Justice Omotosho’s conduct could expose him to disciplinary consequences.
