Kanu’s Lawyers Reject Court Adjournment Over Medical Report

The legal team representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has rejected the Federal High Court’s adjournment of his trial on Wednesday, insisting that the absence of a medical report from the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) was not the true reason for the delay.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, described the adjournment as “unnecessary” and warned that the continued prosecution of their client undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Justice James Omotosho had adjourned the trial to October 16 to allow the NMA conclude its medical assessment of Kanu. The defence, however, argued that the adjournment was part of a “pattern of delays that weaken faith in due process and the rule of law.”

“The absence of the report was not the real reason for the adjournment,” Njoku said. “What we witnessed is a national embarrassment and a tragic commentary on the state of the Nigerian judiciary.”

The defence also challenged the legal basis for Kanu’s prosecution under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 and its 2013 Amendment, arguing that the statutes were repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) in 2022. Njoku cited Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), insisting that no one can be tried under a law that has ceased to exist.

He further referenced Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2011, stressing that the court must take judicial notice of repealed laws, and failure to do so renders the trial invalid. “There is no saving clause here. Continuing this trial under a repealed law is inconsistent with constitutional justice,” he said.

Njoku also raised concerns about institutional lapses that encourage disregard for court orders, warning that “every day this case lingers, the judiciary loses moral standing before the public.” He urged the courts to uphold their constitutional duties and maintain judicial independence, especially in politically sensitive cases.

The defence team reaffirmed that the trial is a nullity and called for its immediate termination, urging compliance with the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 judgment, which they say remains binding.

“Nigeria is at a crossroads — between respect for the rule of law and the erosion of constitutional governance. The judiciary must choose the path of justice,” Njoku said.