Igbo veterans in the United States of American, under the auspices of the American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID), have lambasted Judge James Omotosho over his recent ruling on the no-case submission of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
The Igbo veterans regretted that Judge Omotosho is culpable in any of the following points:
- suffers from a limited grasp of the English language,
- fails to read the regulating statutes,
- lacks the capacity to comprehend, infer, and apply the law he swore to uphold,
- is afraid of doing justice,
- averse to truth, or,
- contemptuous of God, in whose name he took his judicial oath.
In a press release entitled “Omotosho’s Failure on Kanu’s No-Case Submission”, issued by its Legal Department, under the authority of its president, Dr. Sylvester Onyia, and dated 28th September, 2025, AVID held as follows:
“Justice James Omotosho’s ruling on the no-case submission of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stands as one of the most troubling examples of judicial dereliction in recent memory.
“It is either the judge suffers from a limited grasp of the English language, fails to read the regulating statutes—the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the Evidence Act 2011—or worse, he lacks the capacity to comprehend, infer, and apply the law he swore to uphold.
“At the darkest extreme, it appears Omotosho is afraid of doing justice, averse to truth, and contemptuous of God, in whose name he took his judicial oath.”
AVID pointed out several laws that “Omotosho ignored” while rendering his judgement.
The group stated: “The First Law Omotosho Ignored — ACJA 2015, Section 303(3)(a)-(d):
“In Nigerian jurisprudence, the foundational statutory test for a no-case submission is crystal clear.
“It is Section 303(3) ACJA and nothing else.
“This law directs Omotosho to ask himself and answer the following questions:
a. Has any essential element of the offence been proved?
b. Is there any evidence linking the defendant with the commission of the offence?
c. Is the evidence so far led such that a reasonable court could convict on it?
d. Or is there any other ground showing that no prima facie case has been made out?
“This is written in simple English, leaving no room for distortion.
“The decisive question under subsection (c) is stark: Has the evidence led by the prosecution grounded a conviction?
“The answer, from the record of proceedings, is an emphatic “No.” Yet Omotosho refused to follow the law.
AVID, pointing out the second law that “Omotosho ignored”, noted that the Terrorism Prevention Act under which the charges were framed has been repealed, hence “cannot sustain a criminal prosecution”.
It stated further: “The Second Law Omotosho Ignored — Evidence Act 2011, Section 122:
“Section 122 of the Evidence Act imposes a mandatory duty on the court to take judicial notice of the repeal of a statute.
“The Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, under which the charges were framed, was repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
“A repealed law cannot sustain a criminal prosecution.
“Section 303(3)(d) of the ACJA ties directly into this requirement: once a charge rests on a dead statute, no prima facie case can be said to exist.”
AVID, therefore, argued that Omotosho ignored this duty, and proceeded on a jurisdictional nullity.
“The Collapse of the Prosecution’s Case”
The group further pointed another law that Omotosho abused, saying:
“The transcript of Omotosho’s own courtroom, now in the public domain, shows a prosecution reduced to shambles:
“Witnesses admitted under oath they had never met Kanu before, save for seeing him in court.
“No investigation was carried out into the allegations. No evidence linked Kanu to any offence.
“Nobody testified that Kanu incited them. No bomb, no bullet, no gun- nothing!
“Only edited broadcasts downloaded from the Internet in 2025 for offences allegedly committed in 2015.”
AVID decried the proscription of IPOB “touted as justification”, saying it was done in contempt of fair hearing and a subsisting order that affirmed that “IPOB is not an unlawful society”.
“This is not prosecution. It is a pathetic charade,” the group fumed.
“The Constitutional Breach”
The professional veterans regretted that Omotosho also trampled on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
That part of the law guarantees a fair trial.
“These protections are non-derogable which means that Omotosho cannot ignore it or pretend not to know it exists.
“Any violation of any aspect of Section 36 of the Constitution of Nigeria terminates the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu…
“By sustaining this sham, Omotosho made himself complicit in stripping away constitutional guarantees and propping up a trial that should never have survived.”
AVID, consequently, described Omotosho as “a Judge who forsook his oath”.
The group recalled that the judge once invoked God’s guidance when taking charge of this case.
However, “in his ruling he abandoned divine guidance for political expedience.
“He refused to apply ACJA 2015, refused to obey Section 122 of the Evidence Act, and refused to acknowledge the Constitution that gave him the power to be a judge,” it said.
Re-emphasising their avowed demand with the hashtag “#FreeMaziNnamdiKanuNow”, the group concluded:
“What is clear is this… Omotosho’s ruling is not law, but a perversion of justice.
“It betrays the ACJA, the Evidence Act, and the Constitution.
“It betrays the people’s faith in the judiciary as the last hope of the common man.
“A judge on earth is the representative of God in heaven; Omotosho, by this ruling, has chosen to represent neither.”
and then