IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu has filed a motion urging Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Federal High Court to halt the delivery of judgment in his terrorism trial, originally scheduled for November 20, 2025.
In the case numbered FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 against Nnamdi Kanu, a judgment had been scheduled for delivery. However, in a motion filed on November 10, 2025, Kanu, who is personally managing his defense, requested that the court halt the judgment.
He contended that the trial was conducted under a repealed and non-existent statute and in defiance of the Supreme Court’s directive, in violation of Section 286(1) of the Constitution.
The motion seeks several reliefs, including an order to halt the delivery of judgment in the case. It also requests a declaration that the court’s failure to acknowledge the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism (Prevention) Act, in contravention of Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, renders all actions taken under the law invalid.
Additionally, Kanu is asking the court to set aside all proceedings and orders issued by Justice Omotosho, citing lack of jurisdiction and breaches of constitutional supremacy.
On Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Onyedikachi Ifedi stated that the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium emphasized that Justice Omotosho must first hear the motion to arrest judgment before moving forward, in line with the inviolable right to a fair hearing and the principles of the rule of law.
Emphasizing that the motion to arrest judgment is a legitimate and binding legal process, the Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium stated, “On November 10, 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s defense filed a motion to arrest judgment before the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Hon. Justice James Omotosho.
This motion is not political theatre; it is a recognized procedure in Nigerian criminal law, intended to prevent a court from delivering judgment when jurisdictional or foundational issues remain unresolved.”
While the term “arrest of judgment” is mentioned in procedural laws like the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, its legal basis is rooted in Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which ensures that every individual has the right to be heard before any decision impacting their rights or obligations is rendered.
“To ‘arrest’ a judgment is to enforce compliance with the Constitution, ensuring that no decision is handed down in violation of the right to a fair hearing. It is a legitimate, binding, and long-established judicial mechanism designed to prevent miscarriages of justice.”
Ifedi further emphasized that the right to a fair hearing is non-derogable and universally binding. “A fair hearing is not a mere courtesy granted by the court; it is the very lifeblood of justice.”
The right to a fair hearing cannot be suspended, weakened, or postponed—not even for the sake of judicial convenience. In Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 at 448, the Supreme Court affirmed that “Fair hearing does not depend on the correctness of the decision, but on the opportunity given to be heard before the decision is made.”
He stated, “Any judgment delivered while a live motion—particularly one challenging jurisdiction or the court’s competence—is constitutionally null and void. Ignoring such a motion amounts to defying Section 36(1) and issuing a verdict that lacks legal validity.”
Highlighting the urgency of the matter, Kanu’s defence consortium noted that Justice Omotosho has scheduled the delivery of final judgment for 20 November 2025, despite several pending motions, including the motion to arrest judgment filed on 10 November 2025, remaining unheard.
The statement emphasized that “these motions directly challenge the court’s jurisdiction, the existence of a valid charge, and the legitimacy of the plea entered on 29 March 2025. To deliver judgment without resolving them would amount to ruling on nothingness—a legal absurdity.”
Clarifying the facts, the defence consortium noted that Kanu has duly entered his defence in accordance with Justice Omotosho’s directive.
The persistent allegation that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu “refused to enter his defence” is false and misleading. He fully entered his defence in accordance with the law by rigorously cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses, during which their credibility and the integrity of the government’s evidence were thoroughly discredited on record.
Under Nigerian criminal procedure, cross-examination of prosecution witnesses forms an essential part of the defence’s evidentiary case. Having effectively dismantled the prosecution’s case through cross-examination, Kanu is under no obligation to call witnesses to defend a charge that is itself legally null and void.
The accused has declined only to call witnesses to substantiate a charge that no longer exists, since the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, under which he was purportedly tried, has long been repealed and replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. “He cannot defend himself against a phantom charge,” it noted.
If Justice Omotosho proceeds to deliver judgment without first hearing and determining the Motion to Arrest Judgment, he would be denying the accused his constitutional right to a fair hearing and acting without jurisdiction, as the court’s competence remains legally challenged.
The defence consortium contended that any judgment delivered under these circumstances would be null and void from the outset, citing established authorities such as Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and Newswatch v. Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144. They emphasized that proceeding to judgment while a pending motion remains unheard constitutes a departure from the rule of law and amounts to judicial self-help.
“This case transcends an individual; it tests whether Nigerian courts will uphold constitutional supremacy. The Motion to Arrest Judgment serves as a procedural safeguard for the judiciary, ensuring that no judgment violates the Constitution. Ignoring this shield risks undermining the very legitimacy of the courts.”
The consortium called on civil society to resist misinformation and defend the truth, while urging the international community to recognize that the right to a fair hearing, guaranteed under Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004), is absolute and non-derogable. They emphasized that Justice Omotosho faces a pivotal moment: to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution or risk being remembered as the judge who delivered judgment in the absence of due process.
Filing a Motion to Arrest Judgment is a lawful and constitutionally mandated act of self-defence by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. It compels the court to respect the rule of law before delivering any pronouncement in the name of justice. Until this motion is heard and determined, no valid judgment can be issued in FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015. To proceed otherwise would violate the very foundation of Nigeria’s constitutional order—the non-derogable right to a fair hearing.