“OMOTOSHO SHOW ME THE LAW, YOU DON’T KNOW LAW”: HOW A LIVING ORACLE OF THE LAW WAS DISRESPECTED IN HIS OWN TEMPLE

Background

The conduct of the Biafran Separatist Leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (MNK), at the Federal High Court, Abuja, on 20 November 2025 will hardly be forgotten. During the judgment proceedings, MNK was seen in open confrontation with the Court presided over by Hon. Justice J. K. Omotosho. The unprecedented show of audacity which heralded MNK’s conviction and sentencing for terrorism charges deserves some attention for the sake of posterity.

Judges are the Living Oracles of the Law who deserve our reverence whenever we appear before them in court. The courtroom is a place of maximum respect, comportment and decorum. In 2006 while I was a law student of the Faculty of Law, University of Benin, I had the privilege of attending the 6th Justice Idigbe Memorial Lecture in honour of the Late Hon. Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe JSC held at the university. The Guest Lecturer was the renowned Prof. Epiphany Azinge. The title of his lecture was “Living Oracles of the Law and the Fallacy of Human Divination”. At pages 3-4, the Learned Jurist clearly defined the status of a judge as a Living Oracle of the Law: 

The judge is the central figure in the judicial system and the administration of justice. Starting with his appointment, he is deemed to possess numerous attributes far beyond that of mere mortals. It is therefore understandable why he should be addressed as “My lord.” He is the Chief Priest of the temple of justice and all who worship in that temple not only defer to him but perceive him as a symbol of justice. His words are law and commands absolute obedience. He holds the power of life and death and dispenses justice without fear or favour. Like Caesar’s wife, he is not only expected to be above board but to a large extent detached from the society in which he lives. He is expected to retain the confidence of the public in the administration of justice by his honesty, impartiality and devotion to the cause of justice. The judge at all times is expected to be an embodiment of courage, an impartial arbiter and an acutely independent-minded gentleman. He holds the balance of the scale of justice. In the estimation of the public, he certainly cut the picture and image of an oracle.

Does Nnamdi Kanu See Justice Omotosho as an Oracle of the Law?

We have all seen the videos of MNK addressing his Lordship, Hon. Justice Omotosho, in open court. Going by these, it is doubtful whether the Biafra Separatist Leader believes that Justice Omotosho is an oracle in the first place. If he so believes, it is even more doubtful whether he sees his Lordship as a living oracle. Otherwise, when you consider the level of denigration and condescending remarks his Lordship had to deal with, the doubts become deeper. At some point during the Judgment proceedings of 20 November 2025, Justice Omotosho had to plead with MNK saying, “I appeal to you to comport yourself in this temple of justice.” But MNK yelled even louder, “My Lord, you are biased, you are biased, this is not law…” Again his Lordship pleaded repeatedly, “Please I beg you to comport yourself.” But MNK kept on the momentum, “show me the law… show me where it says you can try me on a repealed law… I said show me… show me, show me… this is not a court of law… what you’re doing is not law… show me where you have the right to waive my right to final address… show me… you cannot show me because you don’t know the law… show me, you cannot show me and you are a judge, you claimed you are a judge, you don’t know law, nonsense…”

When MNK wouldn’t budge, Justice Omotosho reminded him of his right of appeal. And having had enough, his Lordship invoked his power of command and ordered the security to see MNK out of the Court while he went ahead to deliver the Judgment in his absence.

The incident of 20 November 2025 was the high point of a series of other occasions in the court where MNK was seen challenging the authority of the court in an unpleasant manner. Hon. Justice Binta Nyako was another Oracle who MNK poked with harsh words until the Judge recused herself from his case.

It has always been said that justice is a three way affair. This means that justice must be served to three parties: the accused, the victim, and society at large. In my opinion, I believe that justice is a four way traffic and the 4th person in the system should be the judge. Given the level of verbal confrontation Justices Omotosho and Nyako had to experience, it became attractive to consider that there must be justice for them too. As a minister in the temple of justice, the moment I heard MNK loudly utter the words, “Omotosho, show me the law? You don’t know law…”, I lowered my head in shock as I saw one Living Oracle of the Law disrespected in his own temple by the express mention of his name.

The Court must be revered whether in Justice or in the face of Injustice

We revere the court presided over by judges not only when justice has been done. In other words, it is immaterial if you suffer any injustice or perceived injustice in a court of law. You are mandated to keep your respect and reverence for the court intact, bearing in mind that the court is endowed with wide discretionary powers. Though the court has a duty to exercise discretion judicially and judiciously, it is difficult to access a favourable discretion of court when you stand in firm contempt of its authority. 

A court is not only a court of law but a court of justice. But justice is not always guaranteed. Notwithstanding the oracle-status of judges as we described, they remain humans and humans are not infallible. Therefore, court decisions may not always be accurate or perfect. This is the reason it was said that even the Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—is not the final court because its decisions are infallible; rather, it is only considered infallible, legally speaking, because it is the final court.

The court of law is also a court of fact, process, procedure and record. The law has provided enormous room for ventilating displeasure with any outcome of court proceedings. This is mainly in the form of appeals which terminate at the Supreme Court in certain matters (as not all cases must end at the apex court). If you believe a judge doesn’t know the law, or that a judge has erred in law, barking and charging at the judge screaming, “you don’t know the law; show me the law…”, is not one of the ways to prove it.

There is also the opportunity to submit a petition to the National Judicial Council against any erring judicial officer. In none of these occasions is it permissible to openly confront a judge in a manner that completely tears down the cloak of awe in which judges thrive and discharge their duties. Desecrating the temple of justice brings the court into disrepute. This does not augur well in the interest of the society governed by law. 

MNK’s Conviction

When MNK sacked his lawyers—highly competent and prominent lawyers—to personally defend himself as constitutionally guaranteed, every lawyer knew the level of risk involved. The risk became even greater when the Separatist Leader opted not to open his defence especially when the court had earlier ruled against his no case submission. The court prevailed on him to open his defence, but he refused, verbally pontificating that the present charges against him were not based on any extant written law in Nigeria. This argument is at the heart of his contentions against his trial.

One would have expected that given the nature of the charge against him, the state would have provided him with counsel. This is usually the right of defendants who are unable to afford a lawyer. However, the situation might be different in the case of a defendant like MNK who decided to proceed alone. In that situation, the court may rightly proceed with him as it turned out. When a person standing trial opts to personally defend himself, he must still abide by established legal procedures. 

Without much ado, the Court convicted MNK of the terrorism charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Any in-depth analysis of the Judgment would reasonably entail a careful perusal and study of the full text of the Judgment which is unavailable as I write.

Conclusion

Therefore, this piece does not focus on the merits of the case and on the rightness or otherwise of the court Judgment. Interestingly, stakeholders within the ranks have hinted at seeking a political solution for the case of MNK and have called for calm. I believe this is a good development.

My focus is to clarify that MNK’s approach in fighting for himself in court smacks of an unacceptable level of indecorous engagement. This must be discouraged, notwithstanding the peculiarity of MNK’s case. If every aggrieved person before the court who is displeased with the presiding judge, decides to yell in denigration of the judge, we will have no judicial system. There will be no court to administer justice, leaving everyone to starve of it. The society would be fully fed with chaos.

Featured image credit: Legit