AVID Criticizes Federal High Court Over Ruling on Kanu’s No-Case Submission

The American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) has faulted the ruling of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, which rejected the no-case submission filed by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

It will be recalled that the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, dismissed Kanu’s no-case submission.

In his ruling, Justice Omotosho held that the Department of State Services (DSS) had established a prima facie case against the IPOB leader. He therefore directed Kanu to enter his defence, stating that the prosecution had convinced the court beyond reasonable doubt that he had a case to answer in the terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

However, AVID, in a statement issued by its Legal Department in the U.S. and signed by its president, Dr. Sylvester Onyia, on Sunday, described the ruling as inconsistent with Nigerian law.

The group cited Section 303(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which provides the test for determining a no-case submission.

“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 the court refused to follow the law,” the group stated.

According to AVID, the prosecution failed to prove any essential elements of the alleged offences, did not link Kanu to their commission, and presented no evidence capable of securing a conviction. Despite this, the judge dismissed the no-case submission.

The organization also argued that Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 compels courts to take judicial notice of repealed laws. It stressed that the charges against Kanu were framed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which had already been repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.

AVID maintained that continuing with charges under a repealed law amounted to a jurisdictional error.

“A repealed law cannot sustain a criminal prosecution. Once a charge rests on a dead statute, no prima facie case can be said to exist,” the group said, adding that the judge “ignored this duty, thereby proceeding on a jurisdictional nullity.”

The group further argued that records from the trial showed prosecution witnesses admitted they had never met Kanu, that no investigation was carried out into the allegations, and that no direct evidence linked him to the commission of any crime.

It added that no one testified to being incited by Kanu, and no physical evidence such as weapons or explosives was presented—only edited internet broadcasts were tendered.

“Witnesses admitted under oath they had never met Kanu before, except 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!” the statement read.

AVID also insisted that the ruling ignored Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, stressing that any breach of this constitutional safeguard should nullify proceedings.

“These protections are non-derogable, which means the judge cannot ignore them or pretend not to know they exist. Any violation of Section 36 terminates the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as a matter of law,” it declared.

The group described the decision as a disappointment to those who see the judiciary as the last hope of the common man, warning that justice must not be compromised for political considerations.