The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has strongly criticised the ruling delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, against the detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, describing the judgment as a severe miscarriage of justice.
In a statement issued by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, the group condemned the verdict as a “travesty of justice” and an affront to the constitutional right to fair hearing.
HURIWA argued that the judgment failed to consider major legal and constitutional concerns raised by Kanu, especially his position that he was being tried under a repealed counter-terrorism law.
According to the group, “The judgment reflects judicial haste and injustice, and the court should have suspended its decision until the Court of Appeal resolved outstanding jurisdictional and procedural disputes.”
The organisation questioned why Justice Omotosho appeared determined to speed up the ruling despite pending appeals on the legality of the charges.
It emphasised that Kanu had repeatedly informed the court that the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, under which he was being tried, was no longer in force.
HURIWA maintained that the charge sheet did not meet constitutional requirements.
“The charge sheet does not disclose any existing written law as required under Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which vitiates the entire trial,” the group said.
It accused the court of overlooking the prosecution’s reliance on what it described as a non-existent statute, insisting that no criminal trial can proceed on the basis of an inoperative law.
“Nothing in Nigerian jurisprudence allows a criminal trial to stand when the charge is based on an inoperative statute,” the rights group added.
The organisation also faulted the court’s interpretation of Kanu’s refusal to enter a defence.
It said Kanu’s position, that the court must first determine jurisdictional objections and the legality of the charges, is consistent with established principles of criminal procedure.
They said the judge’s claim that Kanu deliberately refused to defend himself was “disingenuous and misleading.”
HURIWA further highlighted concerns over alleged violations of Section 36 of the Constitution, which protects the right to fair hearing.
The group emphasised that jurisdictional issues and constitutional objections must always be resolved before trial.
It added that urgent matters such as extraordinary rendition, and pending appeals on the competence of the charges, were ignored.
“In extraordinary circumstances like this, judicial restraint is required, not speed,” the statement noted, stressing that the judgment is fundamentally flawed because of its failure to address crucial constitutional questions.
HURIWA called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to review the conduct of the trial and urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling, describing it as a decision that “offends both the law and the conscience of the nation.”
