Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, a prominent member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, has issued a scathing critique of the legal proceedings that led to the life imprisonment of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader.
In a statement released on Thursday, the 25th of December, 2025, Njoku argued that the verdict delivered on the 20th of November, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Federal High Court, represented a total collapse of evidentiary standards.
The core of the defense’s grievance lies in the assertion that Kanu’s instructions to his followers were protective rather than terroristic. Njoku maintains that had the court properly weighed the materials presented, it would have recognized that the call to arms was a response to external aggression.
“Had Justice Omotosho evaluated the admitted video exhibit of Theophilus (TY) Danjuma, he would have been confronted with the inescapable reality that public calls for communities to arm themselves in self-defence against murderous violence were not unique to Nnamdi Kanu, nor criminalised when made by powerful establishment figures. Proper evaluation would have compelled the court to accept that Kanu’s calls for guns and bullets in Los Angeles USA or during broadcasts were framed as community self-defence against the ravages of armed Fulani killer-herders, not incitement to lawless violence.”
Njoku contends that the court engaged in “strategic silence” regarding specific exhibits that could have exonerated the defendant. He emphasized that once a court accepts evidence, it is legally bound to address it.
The Bind of Evidence: Njoku stated, “Once evidence is admitted, it binds the judge absolutely. The conduct, protest, silence, or alleged boycott of the defendant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) is legally irrelevant to that obligation.”
The Duty of Evaluation: He further argued, “A judge may reject defence evidence, but he must first confront it, evaluate it, and explain why it is rejected. Silence is not neutrality. Silence is suppression.”
Contradicting the Prosecution’s Narrative
The defense highlighted several key pieces of evidence they claim were ignored, which would have challenged the prosecution’s timeline and logic: The Ahmed Gulak Killing: Njoku pointed to video evidence of Governor Hope Uzodinma, noting that had it been evaluated, the judge “would have known because Uzodinma stated it publicly that neither Nnamdi Kanu nor the IPOB had any hand in the killing of Ahmed Gulak”.
The ESN and Amotekun Parallel: Evidence regarding the #EndSARS report and correspondence with South-East governors allegedly showed that the Eastern Security Network (ESN) was a last resort. Njoku argued that “ESN was conceptually and functionally analogous to Amotekun, differing only in political acceptance, not in purpose.”
READ ALSO: Kanu Freedom: Igbo Clerics Blast Governors for Broken Promises, Inaction’
Incommunicado Detention: The lawyer raised the logical impossibility of Kanu directing violence from 2021 onwards, noting he was held in solitary confinement without external contact.
Njoku characterized the judgment as a pre-determined outcome rather than a reflection of the facts on record. He expressed deep concern for the future of the Nigerian judiciary if such precedents are allowed to stand.
“It was not procedural, it was outcome-driven. The court ignored them because it was operating under an overriding imperative to convict by all means, regardless of the evidentiary record. This is the gravest danger such a judgment poses: it signals to the judiciary that evidence may be admitted, buried, and erased at the judgment stage without consequence,” Njoku said.
The statement concluded with a call to the international community to scrutinize the trial, warning that “a judiciary that can ignore evidence without explanation has ceased to function as a court of law.”