By Prosper Olayiwola
The Global Defence Consortium representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has expressed deep concern over what it describes as the systematic collapse of constitutional safeguards in the ongoing legal proceedings before the Federal High Court in Abuja and in Nigeria’s appellate courts. 
According to the group, the case has exposed a pattern of judicial inconsistency and constitutional violations that, in any functioning common-law jurisdiction, would be regarded as a travesty of justice.
The consortium recalled that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was unlawfully remanded in June 2021 without legal representation, a move that directly contravenes Sections 35 and 36(6)(c) of the Nigerian Constitution.
Citing Udoh v. State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 82) 316, the group stressed that no Nigerian citizen can be lawfully deprived of liberty without counsel or a fair hearing.
The defence described the court’s action as a “fundamental breach of due process,” arguing that it set a dangerous precedent for arbitrary detention and state overreach.
The consortium also condemned what it termed “perverse appellate reasoning,” referencing the reversal of the Court of Appeal’s decision to discharge Mazi Kanu.
According to the statement, Justice Tsammani’s panel employed civil-procedure mechanisms to invalidate a criminal discharge a move the defence insists contradicts the principle of finality of appellate discharge, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, and the constitutional separation of judicial powers.
“This act,” the consortium noted, “erodes public confidence in the independence and finality of appellate judgments.”
3. Revival of a Repealed Law
In perhaps the most troubling instance, the Supreme Court’s judgment of December 15, 2023, written by Justice Lawal Garba, reportedly remitted Mazi Kanu for trial under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act (TPAA) 2013.
The group maintained that this decision disregarded Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act which mandates judicial notice of repealed laws and Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, which nullifies criminal liability once a statute is repealed without a saving clause.
“No court, not even the Supreme Court, has the authority to breathe life into a dead law,” the consortium asserted, calling the ruling a “constitutional impossibility and a stain on Nigeria’s legal record.”
4. Return to a Biased Tribunal
The consortium further condemned the re-assignment of the case to Justice Binta Nyako, even after Justice Emmanuel Agim of the Supreme Court had questioned her impartiality.
This, it argued, directly violates the precedent in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, which affirms that judicial impartiality is a cornerstone of fair trial.
“Re-empanelling a judge whose neutrality is already compromised undermines the principle of an independent and impartial tribunal,” the group said.
5. Questionable Witness Testimonies
Another concern raised by the defence involves the credibility of prosecution witnesses currently testifying before Justice James Omotosho.
The consortium alleged that several individuals claiming to be officers of the Department of State Services (DSS) have failed to verify their identities. One of them, it said, admitted never having met Mazi Kanu before.
Such inconsistencies, the statement argued, violate Sections 135–137 of the Evidence Act and cast serious doubt on the integrity of the entire proceeding.
6. Judicial Evasion of Constitutional Obligations
The consortium also accused the courts of deliberately refusing to recognize the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act and of ignoring the operative Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
This, they said, represents “a conscious abandonment of constitutional duty” and breaches the fundamental principle that no Nigerian can be tried under a law that is no longer in force.
A Judiciary on Trial
The consortium warned that when courts begin to prioritize expediency and politics over legality and justice, they cease to function as courts of law.
“The legitimacy of the judiciary is not a divine entitlement,” the group declared, “but a daily referendum conducted in the conscience of the people.”
According to the statement, the handling of Mazi Kanu’s case has placed the integrity of Nigeria’s entire judicial system under intense global scrutiny.
The Consortium’s Demands
The Global Defence Consortium outlined four immediate steps necessary to restore public confidence in the rule of law:
Judicial Review:
Immediate recall and review of all proceedings conducted under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013.
NJC Investigation:
A comprehensive investigation by the National Judicial Council into the conduct of justices and judges who allegedly ignored constitutional provisions.
NBA Clarification:
A public statement from the Nigerian Bar Association clarifying whether it condones the use of repealed laws or detention without counsel in a constitutional democracy.
Witness Verification:
Verification by the DSS of every witness involved in the case, to ensure authenticity and restore integrity to the evidentiary record.
Reaffirming its commitment to lawful and peaceful advocacy, the consortium warned that it would not remain silent while constitutional order is “dismantled in open court.”
“The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” it concluded, “has gone beyond the fate of one man. It has become the trial of Nigeria’s judiciary before the conscience of the world.”
