November 17, (THEWILL) — The South East Revival Group, SERG, has expressed deep concern over the troubling issues recently raised by the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) regarding the ongoing trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
National Director of Publicity, Rt Hon Evang. Nnaemeka Aleke, on Sunday, said the allegations of predetermined bias, procedural shortcuts, and deliberate curtailment of the defendant’s rights—as articulated by HURIWA—require urgent national attention, particularly given the far-reaching implications for judicial credibility, national unity, and democratic stability.
SERG stated that it finds deeply disturbing the pattern of judicial conduct highlighted by HURIWA, particularly the allegations that Justice Omotosho has shown an inclination toward “hurried, choreographed, and restrictive” proceedings. According to SERG, such a pattern—if left unchecked—risks sending a dangerous message that Nigeria’s courts can be used to legitimise outcomes determined outside the courtroom.
The group stressed that a judge’s primary duty is to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done, and that any action capable of raising suspicion of bias threatens the nation’s fragile confidence in the rule of law.
SERG noted that HURIWA’s concerns over the legal nullity of the terrorism charges against Kanu deserve serious judicial consideration, not dismissal. The group emphasized that the foundation of any criminal trial must be a valid law, and any proceeding anchored on a repealed or non-existent legislation is by definition void.
SERG warned that failing to address such a foundational defect amounts to a miscarriage of justice, and raises the undeniable suspicion that the court is working toward a predetermined outcome—an outcome that the law cannot sustain.
SERG echoed HURIWA’s position that the Nigerian government continues to dangerously conflate self-determination with secession, while weaponizing criminal laws to silence dissent. The group reiterated that under international law, African regional charters, and the Nigerian Constitution, the right to advocate for self-determination is clearly protected.
The organisation warned that labelling political advocacy as terrorism not only violates global norms but sets a precedent that could be turned against any citizen or region seeking constitutional reforms or restructuring.
SERG expressed grave concern that the handling of the Kanu case continues to deepen feelings of marginalisation in the South East, raising fears that the judiciary is being used as a tool for political repression. According to the group, the perception that a court is working “to satisfy certain forces” erodes trust in national institutions and widens the gulf between the state and citizens.
SERG commended the decision of Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team to approach the Court of Appeal to halt what it described as “overt judicial irregularities.” The group urged the appellate court to exercise its constitutional responsibility with courage and impartiality—just as it did in its earlier landmark judgment in favour of Kanu..
The group also joined HURIWA in calling on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate the conduct of Justice Omotosho to determine whether his actions fall within the acceptable bounds of judicial ethics and independence.
SERG restated that the Nnamdi Kanu case has become a test case for Nigeria’s commitment to constitutional democracy. According to the group, the issue is no longer just about one man but about whether the Nigerian judiciary can rise above political pressure and affirm its independence.
SERG reaffirmed its commitment to advocating justice, equity, and fairness for all Nigerians, insisting that no nation can claim to be democratic when its courts are perceived to be instruments of predetermined outcomes.
