The fell consequences of ejecting Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from the courtroom By ALOY EJIMAKOR In the theater of criminal jurisprudence, there exists a thin, unyielding line between the preservation of courtroom decorum and the outright annihilation of a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial. When a trial involves capital offenses, that line becomes an absolute iron wall. When Justice Omotosho, on 20th November 2025, ejected Kanu from the courtroom, he may have believed he was stamping his authority on a volatile proceeding. However, by continuing the proceedings in Kanu’s forced absence, especially while the defendant had openly expressed his lack of confidence in the court and while no counsel was present to bridge the gap, the learned trial judge committed an egregious constitutional error. The bedrock of Nigerian criminal justice is Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution, which mandates that every person charged with a criminal offense is entitled to defend himself in person or by legal practitioners of his own choice. While statutory provisions like the Administration of Criminal Justice Act provide narrow windows for a trial to proceed when a defendant purposefully absconds, the rules radically shift when a defendant is forcibly excluded by the court itself. The fatal error here lies in continuing a high-stakes terrorism and capital-offenses trial with an empty dock and an empty defense bench. The Supreme Court of Nigeria held in Adeoye v. State (1999) that: "It is a fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that a trial for a capital offense or serious felony must be conducted in the presence of the accused person." Keep in mind that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was not just absent; he was sent out. And to compound the gravity of the ejection, Kanu had no legal counsel present to defend his interests during this forced ejection. Under Nigerian law, a trial judge cannot comfortably lock a defendant out of the room and simultaneously look past the total absence of a defense team to stand in for the defendant. In Galadima v. State (2012), the apex court emphasized that: "Where an accused person is unrepresented by counsel in a serious criminal trial, especially one touching on capital punishment or severe felony, any proceeding conducted in his absence and without the aid of legal representation is a nullity." By forging ahead without Kanu and without a counsel for him, the court effectively turned an adversarial criminal trial into an ex-parte proceeding. What makes Justice Omotosho’s insistence on proceeding even more untenable is the explicit lack of confidence in him by Kanu prior to the ejection. When a defendant forcefully raises a reasonable apprehension of bias, the judge’s primary duty is not to push forward to prove his stoicism; it is to take a pause. The Supreme Court in Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976), held that: "A judge must be indifferent to the parties and should completely insulate himself from the heat of the battle." Instead of resorting to an adjournment to allow tempers to cool, the judge over-reacted by expelling the very man crying foul, and then continuing with the proceedings. To the reasonable observer, the optics are damning: a judge clearing the room of a so-called unruly defendant, then quietly wrapping up the case in the dark. Courtroom misconduct, perceived or real, by a defendant can be frustrating, and judges are human beings prone to exasperation. But the law provides tools to manage such situations, none of which includes conducting a capital trial while the defendant is locked in a holding cell and his defense table is completely bare. Thus, Justice Omotosho’s decision to continue the proceedings under these precise conditions was perverse and represents a total collapse of due process that will surely shock the conscience of the appellate court.

Dear President Tinubu: Pls direct your security chiefs to stop calling terrorists ‘our brothers’ or ‘prodigal sons’ or even bandits. Such language is seen by the terrorists as capitulation or weakness & it emboldens them. Besides, it annoys a lot of people. Thank you.

How Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s self-representation flawed his conviction By ALOY EJIMAKOR Following the debriefing of his legal team led by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu firmly announced his intention to personally handle his own defense. The trial court accepted this waiver of counsel, asked if he wanted an assigned lawyer, noted his rejection, and then proceeded. Now that the case lies on appeal, the deeper, central question the Court of Appeal must confront is this: Can a defendant facing charges that carry the death penalty legally waive his right to counsel under Nigerian law? The short answer is no. In allowing Nnamdi Kanu to represent himself in a trial involving capital offenses, the learned trial judge unarguably committed a fatal fundamental error in law. Under the Nigerian criminal justice system, the right to legal representation in capital offenses is not a luxury the defendant can decline; it is a rigid and mandatory constitutional safeguard that the court has an absolute duty to enforce, even against the explicit wishes of the defendant. At first glance, there exists an illusion of permissible self-representation that lies in Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution which appears to sanction self-representation by stating that every person charged with a criminal offense is entitled to defend himself "in person or by legal practitioners of his own choice." That may be so in misdemeanors or less severe felonies, where the choice to speak for oneself is a permitted prerogative. However, the Constitution does not operate in a vacuum. It is anchored on the ultimate pillar of fair hearing, and contemporary Nigerian criminal jurisprudence has long recognized that the gravity of capital offenses (where human life hangs in the balance) strips away the court's discretion to permit self-representation. The statutory directive is enacted under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act which explicitly curtails the right to self-representation when the stakes are grave. Section 267(2) of the ACJA leaves no wiggle room for ambiguity when it provides that: "Where a defendant is charged with a capital offence or an offence punishable with life imprisonment and he is not represented by a legal practitioner, the court shall appoint a legal practitioner for his defence." The operative word utilized in the above provisions is "shall". In statutory interpretation, it is an established canon that "shall" denotes a command; it imposes a mandatory duty, leaving zero room for judicial discretion or a defendant's personal whims. Thus, when Kanu’s legal team stepped aside, Justice Omotosho’s question should not have been, "Do you want me to assign a lawyer to you?" Instead, the Judge should have immediately made an unyielding decision to appoint a lawyer for him. Why? Because Kanu’s refusal of counsel is invalid as a matter of law, pure and simple. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the presence of counsel in capital trials is a condition precedent to the validity of the trial. In Josiah v. State (1985), the apex court held that in capital offenses, a defendant must be represented by counsel at all stages of the trial. This was reaffirmed forcefully in Ganiyu v. State (2013), where the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that a trial conducted for a capital offense without legal representation is a nullity, as its absence completely robs the trial court of its jurisdiction. Granted that Justice Omotosho may have felt justified in forging ahead, given Kanu’s articulate disposition. Yet, as a matter of law, lay competence is not a substitute for counsel. A capital trial involves intricate rules of evidence, procedure, and navigation of highly complex constitutional and statutory frameworks unique to capital offenses trial. So, by permitting Kanu to navigate this labyrinth alone, the court allowed a fundamental constitutional infraction that may very well void the entire outcome of the trial. #AloyEjimakor.

First time in EAST I Dey enjoy am ❤️❤️❤️

🚨🗣️ Felix Kalu Nmecha on why he prayed with the Curacao National Team after the game: "In the match we are rivals, but after the game we are all Christians and we are all brothers." "We shared a short prayer because we believe that Jesus is glorified through the game."

A broken judiciary is the silent death of democracy ..Nigeria has become a county where power speaks louder than law.

Arsenal have added "Champions" above the away entrance at the Emirates stadium 🏆🏟️

Chelsea can't even chat to Athletic Bilboa about trophies, yet they want to chat to Arsenal?? Who's your daddy??😂😂😂

You don’t realise how much this means one image means to us all

🚨 𝗕𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚: Robin van Persie has been SACKED by Feyenoord!

Let’s rate the season over 10. 🎤

Next season is gonna be fascinating

LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

Losing on pens will NEVER be the most embarrassing defeat in UCL history. Inter drank 5 goals against this same PSG and they weren’t even clowned this much. Desperately forcing it. 😂😂😂 When all of you are bored you will rest.

Repost😂😂😂😂

Resolute.

One is a prophet. One is an oracle. One is a seer. One is a reformer.

I won’t lie, the sweetest part about Arsenal winning the EPL is that we won it against Pep Guardiola and his arrogant players Dunking in their heads for Pep to pack his bags and leave is the sweetest part. Thank you Mikel Arteta

There have been 4 World Cup tournaments since Manchester United last won the premier league.