Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyer Ejimakor Accuses Justice Omotosho Of Rushing IPOB Leader’s Conviction After Courtroom Clash | Sahara Reporters

Ejimakor argued that the judge ought to have adjourned the proceedings after Kanu, who was representing himself, openly accused the court of bias instead of proceeding immediately to deliver judgment in the capital case.

Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Special Counsel to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has berated Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja for rushing to convict and sentencing the IPOB leader to prison after a heated confrontation between him and Kanu during the trial.

Ejimakor argued that the judge ought to have adjourned the proceedings after Kanu, who was representing himself, openly accused the court of bias instead of proceeding immediately to deliver judgment in the capital case.

Kanu had on November 20, 2025, during his trial in open court, accused Justice Omotosho of bias and insisted that the court could not proceed with judgment because of pending applications and his objection to the proceedings.

“My Lord, you are biased, this is not law, you don’t know what you are doing,” Kanu told the judge before security operatives forcefully removed him from the courtroom.

After Kanu was removed, Justice Omotosho ordered that the judgment proceed in his absence because of what the court described as his unruly conduct.

The judge subsequently convicted Kanu on all seven counts of the terrorism charge and sentenced him to life imprisonment on four counts, while imposing 20 years and five years on two other counts, with the sentences to run concurrently.

However, Ejimakor, in a statement issued on Friday, October 23, 2026, said the sequence of events created a serious fair-hearing and apparent-bias issue that could expose the conviction to challenge on appeal.

According to him, where a self-represented defendant in a capital case openly and repeatedly accuses the judge of bias during a heated courtroom confrontation, the proper course is to suspend the proceedings and allow tempers to cool, “not rush the conviction of the defendant on the same day, at the same proceedings.”

He argued that an adjournment would have been more consistent with the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing, particularly because Kanu was facing offences carrying the possibility of a capital sentence.

Ejimakor said that even where a judge personally believes that he or she is impartial, the appearance of partiality can still become a legal issue if the circumstances would cause a reasonable observer to question the judge’s ability to remain impartial.

He said that Nigerian courts apply an objective test in determining whether there is a real likelihood or apprehension of bias.

The question, according to him, is whether a reasonable and fair-minded person, having knowledge of the relevant facts, would conclude that there is a real possibility that the judge could not bring an impartial mind to the case.

Ejimakor acknowledged that a judge is entitled to reject an allegation of bias that is not supported by evidence.

However, he argued that the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s case went beyond a mere allegation because the accusation occurred during an intense confrontation between the judge and a defendant who was conducting his own defence.

“A heated personal confrontation in open court between the judge and an unrepresented defendant can itself generate the appearance of hostility or partiality in the eyes of a reasonable observer and appellate courts,” he said.

Kanu had dismissed his legal team in October 2025 and announced his intention to conduct his defence personally.

The move came after a defence team led by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi (SAN), withdrew from the case.

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 since argued that the decision to allow Kanu to represent himself in proceedings involving offences capable of attracting the death penalty raises fundamental constitutional questions.

In a separate legal analysis published in June 2026, Ejimakor argued that the right to legal representation in capital cases is a mandatory constitutional safeguard which cannot simply be waived by a defendant.

Against that background, he said the court was under an even greater obligation to ensure that the proceedings were conducted in a manner that left no reasonable appearance of unfairness.

Ejimakor accepted that trial courts possess inherent powers to control proceedings and can remove a defendant whose conduct becomes disruptive.

But he maintained that removing Kanu from the courtroom did not automatically resolve the larger issue created by the confrontation.

“While disruptive behaviour can justify expulsion of the defendant from the courtroom, the expulsion itself degrades the authority of the court to press ahead with judgment while the atmosphere remains charged and a bias allegation is hanging on the court’s head,” Ejimakor said.

According to him, proceeding directly to judgment after such an exchange created an avoidable appellate vulnerability.

He argued that an appellate court could potentially find that the circumstances surrounding the judgment amounted to a breach of fair hearing, apparent bias or another procedural irregularity sufficient to invalidate the conviction.

“This creates a high risk that an appellate court will easily find a breach of fair hearing, an appearance of bias, or a procedural irregularity sufficient to set aside the conviction,” Ejimakor said.

He noted that the stakes were particularly high because the offences carried the possibility of a death sentence, although Justice Omotosho ultimately sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment.

The judge said during sentencing that he could have imposed the death penalty but chose life imprisonment on the basis of mercy and his Christian beliefs.

Ejimakor further argued that the principle was not peculiar to Nigeria, saying similar common-law jurisdictions, including England, Canada and Australia, apply an objective approach to allegations of apprehended bias.

He said the central question in such jurisdictions is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would reasonably apprehend a real possibility of bias.

Ejimakor also referred to judicial conduct standards in the United States, arguing that judicial ethics emphasise not only actual impartiality but also the appearance of impartiality.

He said the obligation becomes particularly important in high-stakes proceedings where a defendant faces a potentially severe punishment.

According to him, judges are expected to manage heated exchanges without creating the impression that a defendant’s conduct has triggered an immediate retaliatory judicial decision.

He therefore recommended that where such a confrontation occurs, the proceedings should be brought under control, the matter adjourned and the alleged bias addressed formally.

Ejimakor said an adjournment would not have undermined the authority of the court.

Rather, he argued, it would have strengthened the legitimacy of the proceedings by allowing the court to address the allegation properly and giving Kanu an opportunity to state the grounds for his complaint.

“The safer course is to restore order, adjourn, allow tempers to cool, and ensure any bias allegation is addressed properly and formally, with the defendant given a fair opportunity to articulate grounds and the court to rule,” he said.

Kanu’s conviction remains subject to his appeal, with his legal team challenging the judgment on several grounds.

Ejimakor has continued to raise jurisdictional and fair-hearing questions surrounding the trial.

In September 2026, he argued that the prosecution’s failure to identify the foreign locations from which some of Kanu’s alleged broadcasts were made raised a significant jurisdictional issue under the doctrine of double criminality.

Ejimakor maintained that, under Nigerian criminal jurisprudence and comparable common-law standards, the decision to adjourn after the courtroom confrontation would have better protected the integrity of the proceedings and the record for appellate review.