Key Points
- She says the judge forced a plea under an unclear law. She argues the court must clearly define every criminal offence.
- She accuses Judge James Omotosho of reading from a prepared script. She says the judge struggled to pronounce parts of his rulings.
- She says the judge refused to give written rulings on major applications. She says the court only read and counted thousands of lines.
Nnamdi Kanu (Chukwuemeka Nnamdi Kanu) is at the centre of a fresh legal row that his wife now challenges. She told reporters the trial judge failed to follow required legal steps in the terrorism trial.
She says the judge forced her husband to plead without the law being read clearly in court. Read the court life sentence ruling details for more background.https://validupdates.com/2025/11/nnk-life-sentence-ruling
What she says about the trial conduct
She accused Judge James Omotosho of reading from a prepared script during the judgment. She said everyone could see and hear him struggle with parts of the written ruling.
She quoted the law saying a person cannot be convicted under an undefined law. She also said the judge ignored the constitution in refusing to deliver clear written rulings.
Her concerns about pleas and written judgments
She insisted a judge must state the exact written law before asking for a defence. She added that forcing a plea under an unclear law breaches basic legal rights.
She complained that the court did not issue proper written decisions on serious applications. She said the judge merely read and counted thousands of lines without clarity.
What this means for the case
Her statements raise fresh questions about the process and possible grounds for appeal. Lawyers may now study the record for procedural errors to use in appeals.
She used one formal quote about conviction law to back her view in public statements. “A person shall not be convicted for a criminal offense unless the offense is clearly defined.”
Next steps and possible reactions
Legal teams for both sides may now file follow up motions in the case record. The courts will decide whether any procedural errors require further hearings or remedies
