Lawyer sheds light on ‘arrest judgment motion’ filed by Nnamdi Kanu

Lawyer sheds light oo ‘arrest judgment motion’ filed by Nnamdi Kanu

By Steve Oko

Legal expert, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has provided insight on the arrest judgment motion filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, before an Abuja Federal High Court, on Monday.

Ifedi who is a prominent member of Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium,  said the action was to stop Justice James Omotosho from delivering judgment on the terrorism charge against Kanu, insisting that Kanu has not been given fair hearing.

He argued that it is against the law for judgment to be delivered in any matter when parties involved had not been given fair hearing.

Recall that Justice Omotosho had slated November 20 for judgment in the suit against Kanu by the federal government.

Below is a full text of a statement issued by Ifedi on the issue:

“JUSTICE OMOTOSHO MUST HEAR THE MOTION TO ARREST JUDGMENT BEFORE PROCEEDING: THE NON-DEROGABLE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING AND THE RULE OF LAW

“1. The Motion to Arrest Judgment Is a Lawful, Binding Judicial Process:

“On 10 November 2025, the defence of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu filed a Motion to Arrest Judgment before the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Hon. Justice James Omotosho.

That motion is not political theatre; it is a recognized legal procedure in Nigerian criminal jurisprudence, designed to prevent a court from delivering judgment where jurisdictional or foundational defects remain unresolved.

“Although the phrase “arrest of judgment” appears in procedural legislation such as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, its constitutional foundation rests on Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which guarantees every person “the right to be heard before any decision affecting his rights or obligations is made.”

“To “arrest” judgment is, therefore, to compel obedience to the Constitution—to ensure that no judgment is delivered in breach of the right to fair hearing. It is a lawful, binding, and time-honoured judicial safeguard against miscarriage of justice.

“2. Fair Hearing Is Non-Derogable and Universally Binding:

Fair hearing is not a privilege granted by a court; it is the oxygen of justice itself.

It cannot be suspended, diluted, or deferred—not even by judicial convenience.

“In Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 at 448, the Supreme Court held that

“Fair hearing lies not in the correctness of a decision but in the opportunity afforded to be heard before the decision is made.”

“A judgment delivered while a live motion—especially one that questions jurisdiction or competence—is pending, is constitutionally void.

To ignore such a motion is to act in defiance of Section 36(1) and to deliver a verdict without legal life.

“3. Why This Motion Matters Now:

Justice Omotosho has announced his intention to deliver final judgment on 20 November 2025, even though several pending motions remain unheard, including the Motion to Arrest Judgment filed on 10 November 2025.

These motions directly question the court’s jurisdiction, the subsistence of any valid charge, and the validity of the plea entered on 29 March 2025.

To proceed to judgment without determining them would be to pronounce upon nothingness—a legal absurdity.

“4. Setting the Record Straight: Kanu Has Entered His Defence:

The persistent claim that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu “refused to enter defence” is false and misleading.

He entered his defence fully within the meaning of law by subjecting the prosecution’s witnesses to rigorous cross-examination, during which their credibility and the integrity of the government’s evidence were demolished on record.

“Under Nigerian criminal procedure, cross-examination of prosecution witnesses forms part of the defence’s evidentiary case.

Having dismantled the prosecution’s case under cross-examination, Kanu has no obligation to call witnesses in defence of a charge that itself is a nullity.

“What he has declined to do is to call witnesses to validate a non-existent charge, because the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 under which he was purportedly tried has long been repealed and supplanted by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

He cannot defend himself against a mirage.

“5. The Legal Consequences if the Motion Is Ignored:

If Justice Omotosho proceeds to deliver judgment without first hearing and determining the Motion to Arrest Judgment:

“He will have denied the accused a constitutional right to be heard;

He will have acted without jurisdiction, as the competence of the court remains under challenge;

Any such judgment will be a nullity ab initio under established authorities including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and Newswatch v. Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144.

To deliver judgment in the face of an unventilated motion is to depart from the path of legality and to descend into judicial self-help.

“6. The Broader Constitutional Stakes:

This case is not about one man—it is about whether Nigerian courts will uphold the supremacy of the Constitution.

The Motion to Arrest Judgment is a procedural shield for the judiciary itself, preventing it from issuing a judgment that would later be voided for constitutional infraction.

If that shield is cast aside, judicial legitimacy collapses.

“7. Our Call to Conscience:

The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium calls upon:

“The Federal High Court to hear and determine the Motion to Arrest Judgment before taking any further step;

The Nigerian Bar Association to defend the sanctity of fair hearing as the lifeblood of justice;

The Media and Civil Society to resist misinformation and uphold the truth; and

The International Community to note that the right to fair hearing under Section 36 CFRN and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004) is non-derogable and binding.

Justice Omotosho stands at a defining juncture: to affirm the supremacy of the Constitution or to risk being recorded in history as the judge who pronounced judgment over silence.

“8. Conclusion:

The Motion to Arrest Judgment filed by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a lawful and constitutionally compelled act of self-defence.

It demands that the court obey the rule of law before it speaks in the name of justice.

Until that motion is heard and determined, no valid judgment can be issue in FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

“To proceed otherwise would be to trample upon the very foundation of Nigeria’s constitutional order — the non-derogable right to be heard.”