THIS DAWN — Renowned economist and entrepreneur, Basil Odilim Enwegbara, has described the judgement of life sentence passed on the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as a case of a terrorist state by action jailing an alleged terrorist by words.
Enwegbara, who also faulted both the judge, James Omotosho, and the pronouncement, said the verdict is regrettable, in an interview with THIS DAWN.
The courtroom, on November 20, 2025, was tense and silent, yet heavy with the weight of history.
Nnamdi Kanu, the IPOB leader, sat composed, aware that his presence was a provocation to the machinery of the state.
“This was not simply a trial; it was a confrontation between a citizen asserting his rights and a government testing the limits of legality,” said Enwegbara shortly before the interview began in earnest.
Read excerpts of the interview below:
1. Did the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
No. From the very start, the prosecution failed to meet its fundamental burden.
In criminal law, a defendant cannot be convicted unless the state proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In Kanu’s trial, the prosecution presented no credible evidence linking him to terrorism under Nigerian law.
Alleged materials, including electronic communications and documents, were handled without a proper chain of custody and without Kanu’s legal team present.
This violated Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees a competent, impartial tribunal and the right to defense.
Nigerian precedents reinforce this principle.
In Okeke v. The State (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 460, the Supreme Court held that a trial must be halted where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case.
Similarly, Abiola v. The State (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 151 established that continuing a trial in the absence of sufficient evidence violates the accused’s right to a fair hearing.
Kanu’s no-case submission was legally correct.
The prosecution had nothing to prove, yet the trial continued, exposing how political influence can contaminate justice.
2. Based on you remarks above, is it safe to assumed that justice was not served?
Justice was not served because the foundation of the trial was illegal.
Kanu had been abducted from Kenya, a violation of international law, including the principle of sovereignty and protection against arbitrary arrest.
The Kenyan High Court, in Republic v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Another [2022] KLR 87, declared the abduction illegal.
Any trial built on such illegality is tainted.
Judge Omotosho presided over proceedings where procedural irregularities were rampant.
Critical evidence was mishandled, lawyers were excluded from examining key exhibits, and political pressure overshadowed legal reasoning.
This violated not only Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution but also Articles 7 and 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which protect personal liberty and ensure a fair trial.
The trial became a form of judicial intimidation, designed to send a message to anyone challenging the state.
Justice, in this case, required impartiality, adherence to procedure, and recognition that the state’s unlawful actions invalidated the trial. None of this occurred.
3. Does Kanu stand a chance at the appellate courts?
Yes. Appellate courts are guided primarily by law rather than political pressure.
Jurisdictional principles in Nigerian law hold that a court cannot exercise authority if the proceedings arise from an unlawful act.
The Supreme Court in Okeke v. The State (1991) affirmed that appellate intervention is required to correct trials built on flawed foundations.
Kanu’s appeal can rely on the Kenyan High Court ruling declaring his abduction illegal. International jurisprudence supports this principle.
In Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439, the European Court of Human Rights held that unlawful extradition invalidates subsequent prosecution.
Given these factors, the Court of Appeal is likely to overturn the trial court’s ruling, restoring the rule of law and upholding the rights of the accused.
4. Will you offer Nnamdi Kanu the same help you offered to Simon Ekpa in faraway Finland?
Yes. The strategy remains consistent: focus on legal principles, protect human rights, and expose violations of due process.
The goal is not merely to win in court but to establish precedent demonstrating that the state cannot override law with political power.
Domestic and international frameworks, when used together, strengthen the case and provide avenues to hold the government accountable.
5. What is your final position in the matter of Omotosho versus Nnamdi Kanu?
Kanu was correct to file a no-case submission because the prosecution had no credible evidence, and the state acted illegally from the outset.
He must also file a human rights suit against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, citing the Kenyan High Court ruling on his unlawful abduction.
Any offer of a presidential pardon should be treated with caution.
Accepting it may prevent Kanu from pursuing claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and prosecution, shielding the state from accountability.
The strategic path is clear: rely on law, pursue justice, and resist expedient political solutions that undermine fairness.
In conclusion, the prosecution failed, justice was denied at the trial level, appellate courts offer a strong chance of vindication, and principled legal strategy—grounded in Nigerian and international law—remains the only path to restoring accountability and the rule of law.
Kanu’s approach demonstrates that courage, strategy, and adherence to legal principles can confront state overreach, reinforcing that legality and fairness, though challenged, cannot be permanently silenced.
Terrorist State by Action Jailing Alleged Terrorist by Words
Enwegbara further described the Omotosho versus Kanu saga as a case of a terrorist state by action jailing an alleged terrorist by words.
He said: “This chapter will descend into the darkest corner of Nigeria’s judicial theatre, where a state that kidnaps across borders, disobeys international rulings, and terrorises its own citizens dares to brand a man a terrorist—not by evidence, but by vocabulary.
Omotosho v. Kanu is not merely a case. It is the moment the mask fell off.
“It is where the Nigerian state, by its own actions, proved more lawless than the man it dragged before the court.
“Tomorrow, Deji will file my application for the Certified True Copies of every proceeding, every process, every word uttered in that courtroom.
“I will not rely on memory or hearsay. I want the cold, unyielding record—because in Nigeria, the record is often the first casualty of truth.
“By Friday, I will also file my applications for the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
“If they exist, I will find them. If they have been buried, I will dig them out. No stone, no page, no line will be left unturned.
“Once these documents are in my hands, I will write this chapter the way it deserves to be written—without fear, without favour, and without apology.
About Basil Odilim Enwegbara
Basil Odilim Enwegbara is a renowned Economist and Entrepreneur.
He is the Founding Chairman of Pan Africa Development Corporate Company Ltd, Chairman of BOE Foods, Vice Chairman of Simang Energy Ltd, as well as the Founding Chairman of African Highway E-solutions.
As well as advising governments and their agencies, Mr Enwegbara has advised large private corporations around the world on corporate and technology strategies.
He was educated at MIT and University of London with master’s in development planning and policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He holds a master’s degree in management of technology and international finance from MIT Sloan School of Management.
Enwegbara also holds a master’s in development economics from University of London.
