This post has already been read at least 1175 times!

The South East Revival Group (SERG) has issued a stern warning over what it describes as “disturbing indicators of judicial compromise” in 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.

In a strongly worded statement released on Sunday by its National Director of Publicity, Rt Hon Evang. Nnaemeka Aleke, the group backed concerns earlier raised by the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), saying the allegations of predetermined bias, procedural shortcuts and the restriction of Kanu’s fundamental rights demand urgent national and institutional scrutiny.

SERG stressed that the troubling pattern outlined by HURIWA—particularly claims of “hurried, choreographed, and restrictive” proceedings—threatens the sanctity of justice and risks creating the impression that the judiciary is being used to validate pre-arranged outcomes.

“A judge’s duty is to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done,” SERG declared. “How can a defendant who has been incarcerated for over four years be denied the full opportunity to defend himself? When a court prioritises speed over substance, Nigerians have every right to fear that justice is being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.”

SERG Questions Validity of Charges Based on Repealed Law

A central issue raised by the group concerns the validity of the terrorism charges against Kanu. SERG insisted that HURIWA’s argument—that the charges are rooted in a repealed law—must be addressed before any trial can proceed.

“The court cannot build a judicial edifice on a legal vacuum,” the group stated. “If the charges truly rely on a repealed statute, then the entire case collapses. It is the duty of the court, not the defendant, to raise and resolve such a fundamental defect. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice.”

Self-Determination Is Not a Crime, SERG Insists

The group also accused the government of conflating peaceful self-determination advocacy with secession and terrorism. Citing international jurisprudence and constitutional guarantees, SERG argued that Kanu’s political expressions fall within globally accepted standards of lawful advocacy.

“No democratic state criminalises peaceful political advocacy,” SERG said. “From the U.S. Supreme Court to the European Court of Human Rights, the global standard is clear: unless speech explicitly and imminently incites violence, it is protected. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s actions do not meet that threshold.”

The group warned that weaponising criminal laws to silence political expression sets a dangerous precedent that could later be used against any region or citizen pushing for reforms.

Handling of Case Deepening Regional Alienation, SERG Says

SERG expressed fears that the conduct of the trial is worsening feelings of marginalisation in the South East, further damaging trust in national institutions.

“A nation already struggling with mistrust cannot afford the impression that its courts are not independent,” the group said. “When the judiciary appears compromised, it widens the gulf between the state and its citizens.”

Calls for Intervention by Court of Appeal, NJC

The group welcomed the decision of Kanu’s lawyers to approach the Court of Appeal to halt the alleged irregularities. It urged the appellate court to demonstrate the same courage and impartiality it showed in its earlier ruling in the matter.

“It is time for the appellate court to rise to the occasion once again and restore public confidence,” SERG asserted.

The group also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to thoroughly investigate Justice Omotosho to determine whether his conduct aligns with judicial ethics and independence.

“Nigeria Must Choose Justice Over Political Convenience”

Concluding its statement, SERG said the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has become a litmus test for Nigeria’s democratic integrity.

“History will remember this moment,” the statement read. “Will Nigeria choose justice or political convenience? Will the courts uphold the Constitution or bow to external pressure? The choices made in this case will either reinforce our democracy or weaken it beyond repair.”

SERG reaffirmed its commitment to defending justice, equity and fairness for all Nigerians, saying no country can claim to be democratic when its courts are perceived as instruments for predetermined outcomes.

This post has already been read at least 1175 times!