[TOP STORIES]: Nnamdi Kanu’s Court Challenge Exposes Prosecution Silence, Raises Questions on Justice

 

A dramatic exchange in court on 4 November 2025 has left legal experts and citizens questioning the conduct of the prosecution in the ongoing trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

During a peak moment of the proceedings, Kanu directly challenged the prosecution, demanding that Chief Adewola Awomolo, SAN, specify the law under which he was being tried. Court records show that Kanu asked Awomolo to “stand up and tell this court the law… Let him read it into the record… Let him show this court the statute.”

The response—or lack thereof—was startling. Chief Awomolo did not rise, object, or identify any statute. He did not request time to respond, nor did he deny the challenge. Legal analysts note that, in an adversarial criminal system, such silence can be interpreted as an implicit admission: the prosecution could not cite any law under which Kanu was being tried.

This moment carries heavy legal significance. Prosecutors are required to: identify the relevant offence-creating statute, justify the court’s jurisdiction, and oppose jurisdictional challenges with law. On that day, Awomolo did none of these. His silence left the court without any statutory basis for the trial.

Court intervention further complicated matters. Justice Binta Nyako Omotosho, instead of compelling the prosecution to respond, redirected proceedings, deferred jurisdictional issues, and warned the defendant about “waiver,” effectively shielding the prosecution’s silence. Legal experts describe this as a turning point where the trial ceased to be fully adversarial.

For ordinary citizens, the scenario was simple yet striking: a man on trial asked the prosecutor to point out the law under which he was being prosecuted—and the prosecutor could not. Yet, the court pressed forward with the proceedings. Critics argue that this represents institutional coercion rather than justice.

Observers emphasize that this was not a simple lapse. Chief Awomolo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, understood the legal consequences of his silence and relied on the court to carry what the prosecution could not. Legal commentators say this constitutes complicity by omission, not mere incompetence.

The exchange has become central to multiple grounds of appeal, including claims of lack of jurisdiction, absence of a statutory offence, violation of constitutional rights, judicial bias, and prosecutorial misconduct.

On 4 November 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu effectively forced the prosecution to confront a legal void—one that now forms a permanent part of the trial record, and which legal experts say cannot be erased or explained away.

By Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.