By Emeka Ugwuonye
As the legal community and the public eagerly await the judgment of Justice James Omotosho on November 20, 2025, in the Nnamdi Kanu case, many may not like what appears to be an inevitable outcome. It is increasingly clear that the judge will find the jurisdiction to try Kanu on the charges he faces. The law, guided by precedent set by the Supreme Court, leaves little room for alternative interpretations.
To understand why the judge is likely to uphold jurisdiction, one must acknowledge the existing rulings. The Supreme Court has previously established that the extraordinary rendition of Kanu does not preclude him from standing trial in Nigeria for these offenses. In this regard, the High Court lacks the power to overrule the Supreme Court’s decisions. Therefore, based on Nigerian law, Justice Omotosho will likely affirm that the court has jurisdiction over Kanu’s case.
Moreover, there is much reliance on a prior decision made by the Court of Appeal regarding the legality of the charges against Kanu. However, it is crucial to recognize that this decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court and is no longer applicable. As such, many arguments referring to the Court of Appeal judgment lack validity in the current legal framework.
A notable aspect of Kanu’s defense strategy is his claim that the terrorism law under which he was charged has been repealed. This assertion is somewhat misleading. The law has been amended, not entirely repealed. Importantly, the treason charges against Kanu were not predicated on the terrorism statute. Therefore, regardless of the fate of the terrorism charges, the treasonable charges are likely to persist and withstand preliminary challenges.
While it is possible for Kanu to argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, this argument loses considerable weight in light of his decision not to present any defense. The judgment on November 20 is, therefore, predictable. The court will likely affirm its jurisdiction and find it difficult to dismiss the prosecution’s evidence, especially given Kanu’s failure to counter it.
When the court determines that there is a case to answer, it essentially signifies that a valid case has been presented, one worthy of a defense. By not offering a defense, Kanu inadvertently strengthens the prosecution’s case, suggesting that it is robust enough to warrant a conviction. Consequently, it appears nearly unavoidable that Kanu will face conviction, a conclusion that many observers seem to anticipate.
Following a possible conviction, discussions surrounding a pardon for Kanu will likely begin. While the prospect of a pardon may become a topic of interest, it is important to note that this relief will not take place until after he has been convicted. The timeline for any potential pardon remains uncertain, leaving many to wonder how long such post-conviction relief may take.
In conclusion, the upcoming judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s case serves as a critical reflection of the intersections between law, politics, and public perception in Nigeria. The legal landscape is clear, and based on existing rulings, Kanu’s chances of avoiding conviction seem slim. With the legal framework firmly established, it’s essential to consider how this case will resonate in the broader context of justice and accountability in Nigeria. As we approach November 20, it’s crucial for all stakeholders—judiciary, government, and the public—to prepare for the ramifications of the court’s decision and what it might mean for the future of justice in the country.
