How Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was frustrated from mounting his defense
By ALOY EJIMAKOR
The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu commenced before Justice Omotosho in March 2025. As in all criminal trials, it is the prosecution that must first present its case before the defense can present its own. This is how it proceeded until June 2025 when the prosecution concluded its case after calling five witnesses.
Following the dismissal of Kanu’s subsequent no-case submission, the court proceeded to establish a strict 6-day window for the defense to present its case. So soon thereafter, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu debriefed his lawyers and indicated a desire to represent himself.
So, when he sought a 90-day timeframe to prepare his defense, including calling 25 witnesses, the court refused it but later reconsidered by giving him a few extra days. In the backdrop of this strict timeframe, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was effectively frustrated from mounting any meaningful defense.
In the interim, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu had filed a written objection to the jurisdiction of the court to subject him to trial, raising several constitutional and statutory grounds. But instead of ruling on this objection, the court arbitrarily foreclosed him from presenting his defense, simply because he was insisting that his objections to the jurisdiction of the court be resolved first. And there is more.
First, the bedrock of a valid criminal trial in Nigeria is enshrined in Section 36(6)(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that every person charged with a criminal offense is entitled to be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense. This provision was breached when the prosecution was permitted several months (March to June) to call five witnesses but Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was rigidly restricted to a six-day window to call 25 witnesses (plus the more in the offing). This severe disparity violates the principle of "equality of arms," an essential component of a fair trial.
Second, the shocking failure of Justice Omotosho to safeguard the rights of an unrepresented defendant will forever live in judicial infamy. It is a given that the moment a defendant debriefs his legal team and expresses an intention to defend himself, the trial court owes an elevated and sacred duty of guidance to ensure the lay litigant is not blindsided by technical rules. Thus, forcing an unrepresented defendant, facing capital charges, to compress the testimonies of 25 witnesses into a handful of days is a constructive denial of the right to be heard.
Third, Justice Omotosho’s arbitrary foreclosure of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from defending himself is an impermissible assault on the primacy of jurisdictional objections. It is settled law across decades of Nigerian jurisprudence that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of adjudication.
So, where a trial court grants the state a wide window to build its case, but traps a self-represented defendant in a chronological straightjacket, refuses to resolve threshold jurisdictional objections and abruptly forecloses the defense, the trial (and any conviction emanating therefrom) becomes a perversive non-event that will ultimately fail appellate muster.