Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, special counsel to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has criticised Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja over the handling of Kanu’s conviction, arguing that the judge should have adjourned proceedings following a heated courtroom confrontation.
Ejimakor said the decision to proceed with judgment after Kanu accused the court of bias raised serious concerns about the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing and could provide grounds for challenging the conviction on appeal.
In a statement issued on Friday, October 23, 2026, the lawyer argued that the court should have allowed tempers to cool and formally addressed the allegation of bias before delivering judgment in a case involving offences that could attract the death penalty.
The controversy stemmed from proceedings on November 20, 2025, when Kanu, who had elected to represent himself, openly challenged Justice Omotosho’s impartiality and questioned the court’s decision to proceed with judgment despite pending applications.
“My Lord, you are biased, this is not law, you don’t know what you are doing,” Kanu reportedly told the judge before security operatives removed him from the courtroom.
Following the incident, Justice Omotosho ordered that proceedings continue in Kanu’s absence, citing what the court described as his unruly conduct.
The judge subsequently convicted Kanu on all seven counts of terrorism-related charges. He sentenced the IPOB leader to life imprisonment on four counts, while imposing 20-year and five-year prison terms on two other counts, with the sentences to run concurrently.
During sentencing, the judge reportedly said he could have imposed the death penalty but opted for life imprisonment on grounds of mercy and his Christian beliefs.
Fair Hearing Concerns
Ejimakor maintained that although judges have the authority to control courtroom proceedings and remove defendants whose conduct becomes disruptive, such powers should not prevent courts from addressing allegations that could affect the perceived fairness of a trial.
According to him, proceeding immediately to judgment after a heated exchange between a judge and an unrepresented defendant could create the impression of hostility or partiality, even where the judge believes he has acted impartially.
He explained that Nigerian courts apply an objective test when considering allegations of judicial bias. The central question, he said, is whether a reasonable and fair-minded observer, aware of the relevant circumstances, would perceive a real possibility that the judge might not be impartial.
Ejimakor acknowledged that judges are entitled to reject unsupported allegations of bias. However, he argued that the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s case required particular caution because the accusation occurred during a direct confrontation in open court.
He said the situation went beyond a routine allegation, potentially raising questions about the appearance of impartiality and the integrity of the proceedings.
The lawyer further argued that the seriousness of the charges and the possibility of capital punishment made it especially important for the court to demonstrate that the proceedings were conducted fairly.
Self-Representation Raises Further Questions
Kanu had dismissed his legal team in October 2025 and announced his intention to conduct his defence personally. The development followed the withdrawal of a defence team led by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
According to the report, Kanu subsequently declined repeated opportunities offered by the court to open his defence and was eventually deemed to have waived his right to do so.
Ejimakor has questioned whether allowing Kanu to represent himself in a case involving offences carrying the possibility of the death penalty raised fundamental constitutional concerns.
In a separate legal analysis published in June 2026, he argued that access to legal representation in capital cases constitutes a mandatory constitutional safeguard that should not simply be waived by a defendant.
He maintained that these concerns placed an even greater responsibility on the court to ensure that the proceedings were free from any reasonable appearance of unfairness.
Possible Grounds for Appeal
Ejimakor warned that the decision to proceed with judgment immediately after the courtroom confrontation could expose the conviction to further legal challenges.
He argued that an appellate court could examine whether the circumstances amounted to a breach of fair hearing, apparent judicial bias or a procedural irregularity capable of invalidating the conviction.
The lawyer also referred to legal principles applied in other common-law jurisdictions, including England, Canada and Australia, where allegations of apprehended bias are assessed by considering how a fair-minded and informed observer would view the circumstances.
He noted that judicial ethics in the United States similarly emphasise the importance of maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality.
According to Ejimakor, judges must manage courtroom confrontations carefully to avoid creating the impression that a defendant’s conduct has triggered an immediate retaliatory decision.
He proposed that the court should have restored order, adjourned the proceedings and provided an opportunity for Kanu to formally state the basis of his allegation, after which the court could have addressed the matter appropriately.
Ejimakor insisted that an adjournment would not have weakened the court’s authority but could instead have strengthened public confidence in the judicial process and preserved the integrity of the proceedings for appellate review.
Earlier Jurisdictional Objections
The lawyer has continued to raise legal questions concerning the prosecution and trial of the IPOB leader.
In September 2026, Ejimakor reportedly argued that the prosecution’s failure to identify the foreign locations from which some of Kanu’s alleged broadcasts originated raised a jurisdictional issue under the doctrine of double criminality.
He maintained that the issue, alongside his concerns about fair hearing and judicial impartiality, should be considered in the ongoing legal challenge to the conviction.
Kanu’s conviction remains subject to appeal, with his legal team challenging the judgment on several grounds.
The arguments raised by Ejimakor represent the defence’s position on the proceedings. Their legal merit and any implications for the conviction will depend on the applicable law and the determination of the appellate court.
Source: Sahara Reporters
