Who said what happened in court, when it happened, where it happened, why he believes it happened, and how he explained it became clear on Thursday after human rights activist and former AAC presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, reacted to the judgment delivered in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The ruling came from the Federal High Court in Abuja, and Sowore said the outcome did not come from a fair legal process but from a choice the government had already made before the court sat.
Sowore had warned earlier in November that the Bola Tinubu administration had already decided what the end of the case would be. He said he received information from people inside the government that a plan was created long before the final court session. According to him, the plan was to secure either a death sentence or life imprisonment for Kanu and then present it as a lawful judgment. He said what happened on Thursday was only the next step in that plan.
He explained that the conduct of the trial showed that the government wanted the judge to give a specific interpretation to Kanu’s refusal to present his defence. He said the expectation was that the court would treat that refusal as an admission of wrongdoing, making it easy to deliver a ruling already arranged behind closed doors.
Sowore also recalled the events of November 1995, when Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni men were condemned under the Abacha administration. He said the country now faces a moment that reminds him of that period. He noted that although many years have passed, the pattern of using the justice system to carry out political choices has not changed. For him, the case has gone beyond a legal matter and now questions the moral direction of the nation.
The court, led by Justice James Omotosho, convicted Nnamdi Kanu on all counts. The judge ruled that Kanu’s refusal to defend himself left the case of the prosecution unchallenged. Earlier in the day, Kanu had been taken out of the courtroom after the judge said he was repeatedly unruly and disrupting proceedings. Despite his absence, the court continued with the ruling.
Justice Omotosho said Kanu’s order for residents of the Southeast to stay at home on Mondays, and the threats and violence that followed it, amounted to an act of terrorism. He said no private citizen has the right to order movement restrictions and noted that only the President can do so under the constitution during a state of emergency. The judge also pointed to testimony from a prosecution witness who served in Imo State and said the order kept towns and farms empty for years.
The court also found Kanu guilty of presenting himself as a member and leader of IPOB, a group already banned under Nigerian law. With that, the judge declared Kanu guilty on the charge relating to his activities in the group.
The ruling followed earlier decisions by the court to continue sitting even if Kanu was not present because of his behaviour. The conviction has since raised fresh debates across the country, with Sowore insisting that the case shows how far the government is willing to go to enforce a political agenda. He said Nigeria must now look inward and decide the path it wants to follow as a nation.