PART 7 OF 150: OMOTOSHO’S SEVENTH JURISDICTIONAL FAILURE — THE TYRANNY OF THE BENCH: HOW A TRIAL JUDGE OVERRULED THE SUPREME COURT, REFUSED TO READ THE LAW, AND DESTROYED HIS OWN JUDGMENT
By Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THE UNBELIEVABLE ARROGANCE ON THE BENCH
How Justice James Omotosho managed to overrule the Supreme Court of Nigeria—and still sit comfortably on the bench—defies common sense.
When a citizen stands in court facing life imprisonment, a judge has one sacred duty: read the statute book, obey the Constitution, and follow the direct, binding orders of the highest court in the land. Instead, in his 20 November 2025 judgment (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015), Justice Omotosho acted like an emperor who answered to no one.
When Mazi Nnamdi Kanu formally begged the court to move his trial from the dead 2011/2013 Terrorism Act (TPAA) to the new, living 2022 Terrorism Act (TPPA)—as mandated by the compulsory transition commands in Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act—Justice Omotosho flatly refused to obey the law. He threw the request away with a wave of his hand, without even bothering to read what the law actually says.
What law on earth gave a trial judge the power to refuse to read a key section of a statute when a man fighting for his life pleaded with him to follow it?
This is not some dry, boring legal debate. It is a shocking story of open judicial rebellion. He went ahead to try, convict, and sentence a citizen using a dead, scrapped law—doing the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the 2022 law commanded him to do. That single act of arrogance killed his entire judgment from day one.
1. STRIP AWAY THE "ALLEGED": THE PROOF IS WRITTEN ON THE COURT RECORD
Newspaper commentators love to hide behind weak words like "alleged" or "claims that the judge made a mistake."
Stop saying "alleged." There is nothing left to guess.
This is not a matter of opinion or political spin. The proof is stamped in plain black-and-white across the court record:
The Supreme Court Order: The Supreme Court (per Justice Lawal Garba) ruled clearly that a judge has zero jurisdiction to try anyone unless the charge is based on a valid and subsisting law—meaning a law that is actively alive, valid, and not repealed, dead, or scrapped like the old 2013 TPAA.
The Defence Request: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu formally applied to the court, asking the judge to move the charges from the dead TPAA 2013 to the living TPPA 2022 Act as mandated by Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, to satisfy the constitutional rule of a written, extant law under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.
The Judge's Refusal: Omotosho rejected the request, refused to follow the law, and never moved the trial.
The Dead Law Conviction: He convicted and sentenced Kanu using a statute that the National Assembly had already buried.
Open Sections 97 and 98 of the 2022 Act. Open Omotosho’s judgment. Read it yourself and see the open mutiny.
2. PLAIN ENGLISH FOR EVERYONE: HOW THE LAW WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK
You do not need a law degree to see how blatantly wrong this was. It boils down to three simple rules:
Rule 1: The Old Law Died. In 2022, lawmakers passed a brand-new terrorism law (TPPA 2022) and completely killed, repealed, and scrapped the old 2011/2013 law. A subsisting law means a law that is alive today—not a dead ghost from the past.
Rule 2: Section 98(3) Kept the File Alive. The "savings clause" in Section 98(3) simply meant the ongoing case wouldn't instantly vanish into thin air. It kept the file open so it could be moved.
Rule 3: Sections 97 and 98(2) Commanded the Move. Both sections use the compulsory word “shall”—meaning the judge must transition the trial to the new 2022 law.
The Car and Licence Analogy: Imagine driving a car with an old, expired paper driving licence. The government passes a new law saying everyone must switch to a digital licence. Section 98(3) stops the police from arresting you on day one. But Sections 97 and 98(2) command you to get that new digital licence before you can legally drive off.
Justice Omotosho used Section 98(3) to keep the car running, but he threw away Sections 97 and 98(2) and refused to get the new licence. He sentenced a man using an expired, illegal paper permit!
3. THE MOTIVE UNMASKED: WHY DID OMOTOSHO REFUSE TO READ THE LAW?
Why would a Federal High Court judge deliberately refuse to read the plain words of a statute? Why would he dismiss a formal application begging him to follow the law?
The real motive is painfully obvious to anyone paying attention:
He Treated Kanu Like He Didn't Count: Omotosho acted as though Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was already marked for prison, assuming basic constitutional rights didn't apply to him.
Fear of the Living Law: He refused to move the case because the new TPPA 2022 contains strict evidence rules, transparent safeguards, and clear definitions. The government's weak, stale 2015 allegations could never survive the transparent checks of the 2022 Act.
A Pre-Planned Conviction: If the judge had followed the law and moved the trial, the charges would have collapsed and Kanu would have walked free. To guarantee a conviction, Omotosho locked the trial inside a dead law. He threw away his judicial oath just to deliver a predetermined political outcome.
4. HOW THIS DEFIANCE DESTROYED THE CONVICTION COMPLETELY
By playing the tyrant and doing the exact opposite of what the law commanded, Omotosho didn't secure a solid victory for the state—he destroyed his own judgment beyond repair.
This fatal error cannot be fixed on appeal for three unshakeable reasons:
Violation of Section 36(12) of the Constitution: Section 36(12) is a strict command: nobody in Nigeria can be convicted under a law that is not active, written, and extant. A dead law is a legal nothing. By convicting under a scrapped statute, Omotosho delivered a total legal zero.
Total Loss of Power to Judge: Under the famous law rule in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, a judge loses all jurisdiction to hear a case when he refuses to follow a mandatory statutory instruction. The moment Omotosho refused to move the case under Sections 97 and 98(2), he lost the legal authority to judge it.
An Appeal Trap: An appeal court cannot rewrite history. They cannot pretend Omotosho moved the trial when the record clearly shows he refused to do so. You cannot rescue a conviction built in direct, open defiance of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION & THE BATTLE CRY FOR THE APPEALS
Justice Omotosho proved that he believed he was above the Supreme Court, above the Constitution, and above the law books sitting on his desk. But in his rush to lock a man away, he handed down a judgment that is completely hollow.
SECTION 98(3) SAVED THE CASE FILE SO IT COULD BE MOVED. IT WAS NEVER A LICENCE FOR A JUDGE TO REFUSE TO READ SECTIONS 97 AND 98(2), DEFY THE SUPREME COURT, AND SENTENCE A MAN UNDER A DEAD LAW.
We challenge any defender of this judicial perversion to answer this simple, unanswerable question:
“Which law gave Justice Omotosho the power to refuse to read Sections 97 and 98(2) of the TPPA 2022, reject the defendant’s request to follow the law, and convict a citizen under a dead law when a subsisting law means a law that is active and not scrapped, and the Supreme Court, Section 36(12) of the Constitution, and the 2022 Act explicitly commanded him to do the exact opposite?”
There is no answer because no such law exists.
STRIP AWAY THE EXCUSES. OPEN THE COURT RECORD AND SEE HOW A JUDGE BROKE THE LAW JUST TO HAND DOWN A PREPARED CONVICTION.
Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.
إرسال تعليق