The article, “Nnamdi Kanu: Let the Appeal Speak” by Abayomi TJ Ishola, published in The Nation of 26 October 2026, correctly observes that public commentary on high-profile judgments can become noisy. But his observation is less persuasive when it treats legitimate concerns about fair hearing and the integrity of the trial record as mere presumption or political noise that must yield to silence until the Court of Appeal speaks.
The appeal will speak, yes. That is its function. Counsel is however entitled, especially in a capital case involving a self-represented defendant, to identify the precise defects that vitiate the conviction. The public is equally entitled to understand those defects. The danger is not that arguments are aired; it is that the record is reduced to fragments while the complete circumstances are left unexamined. Let us examine Ishola’s thesis in seriatim:
First Is The Bias Allegation and the Decision to Proceed: Ishola is correct that an allegation of bias is not proof of bias, without more. Nigerian law has long applied an objective test, which is: Would a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer, knowing the relevant facts, conclude that there was a real possibility the judge could not bring an impartial mind to the matter? Subjective belief by the judge that he remained impartial does not answer the question.
So, as Ishola contended that we should “let the appeal speak”, I contend that we should also let the record speak. And the record is this: On 20th November 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, representing himself after the debriefing of a defence team that included Senior Advocates of Nigeria, confronted Justice James Omotosho in open court. He pointedly accused the judge of bias, insisted that pending applications and the opportunity to file a final written address had not been properly addressed, and demanded that the court identify the law under which it proposed to convict him. The exchange was heated. The court ordered his removal. And then, judgment followed the same day in his absence.
The safer and more just course, particularly in a capital case, was to restore order, adjourn, and address the bias allegation formally on the record. An adjournment would not have paralysed the court. It would have protected the appearance of justice and burnished the integrity of the record. Proceeding immediately after a markedly personal confrontation with an unrepresented defendant, followed by his physical removal, creates precisely the circumstances in which a reasonable observer may apprehend hostility or partiality. That is a recognised ground of appeal, not a conjecture. Similar objective standards govern apprehended bias in other common-law jurisdictions, especially England, from where Nigeria received its laws. You can go and verify.
Second Is The Self-Representation That Does Not Diminish the Court’s Duty: Kanu’s decision to represent himself, and the court’s subsequent finding that he had waived the opportunity to open a defence, do not resolve the fair-hearing issues. Section 36 of the Constitution remains fully applicable. In capital trials, courts have a heightened obligation to ensure that procedural safeguards are real, not notional. Opportunities offered under conditions that raise questions of fairness do not automatically cure other defects. Whether those safeguards were sufficient is a question the appellate court will decide on the complete record, including the applications that were live, the reasons given for proceeding, the circumstances of the removal, and the treatment of the final address to boot.
This is compounded by the real issue of whether, as a matter of law, the judge should have imposed a lawyer on Kanu, despite his objections. To understand why this should be an issue, recall the fact that the prosecution’s allocutus was done by counsel, but Kanu’s own was done by a lay person. Does that not violate the “equality of arms” the Supreme Court has said must be present throughout the duration of a criminal trial?
Third Are The Other Substantive Grounds That Are Independent of the Confrontation: The article rightly notes that other issues exist and must be examined on their merits. That said, let us then examine one of them, which is the legal basis of the conviction. The Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 (as amended in 2013) had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Section 36(12) of the Constitution requires that an offence and its penalty be defined in a written law “in force”. To be sure, the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 (as amended in 2013) under which trial was conducted was not the written “in force”
Whereas, savings provisions may preserve certain pending proceedings; they do not resurrect a repealed penal statute as the substantive basis for a 2025 conviction, nor do they displace the constitutional requirement of a written law “currently” in force. So, whether the trial court correctly applied the transition provisions, identified the operative statute, and prescribed penalties consistent with the “law in force on the date of judgment” is a technical question that cannot be dismissed as emotion or noise. It goes to jurisdiction and the validity of the conviction itself.
Thus, the denial of the opportunity for a proper final address, the effect of earlier appellate and Supreme Court decisions, and the consequences of extraordinary rendition on the fairness of the subsequent proceedings are likewise matters of record and law. None of them is answered by the observation that the defendant was disruptive or that the judgment was delivered promptly. Disruptive behavior stems from agitation, of which promptness is not the panacea.
Fourth Is Public Scrutiny and the Role of Counsel: Lawyers have a duty to their clients, in court and in the public space. In cases that implicate fundamental rights, the use of state power, and the limits of judicial authority, they also have a responsibility to explain the legal grounds of challenge with precision and zeal. Nelson Mandela’s unjust conviction for treason and terrorism roiled South African and global media, as well as diplomatic circles until apartheid blinked and freed from prison. That was not noise. That was normal.
Journalists report those arguments; citizens may evaluate them. Treating every such discourse as an attempt to pre-empt the appellate court confuses advocacy with adjudication, and stifles the inherent privilege of counsel to leverage public advocacy. Yes, the appellate court will examine the record, the statutes, and the authorities. But while informed public discourse does not replace that process, opacity does not strengthen it.
Thus, the call to “let the appeal speak” is fine and good. But what must also be allowed to speak is the complete record of what occurred before judgment was delivered, the statutory framework under which the conviction was entered, and the constitutional standards of fair hearing that apply with special considerations in capital trials. Those are the questions the Court of Appeal will answer. That said, your guess on how the questions will be answered is as good as mine.
