In a recent interview on Symfoni TV from 1:47, on Sunday, November 20, 2025, human rights lawyer Maxwell Opara shared his professional observations regarding the handling of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial. He explained that the processes followed in Kanu’s case differed significantly from standard practices in terrorism trials, raising questions about procedural fairness and impartiality.
He said, “I have participated and seen the trial of terrorists and how they are normally handled,” emphasizing that the treatment Kanu received in court was unusual and inconsistent with established legal norms. According to Opara, this comparison highlights how certain decisions in Kanu’s trial may have been influenced by bias rather than strictly following the law.
Opara stressed that terrorism trials typically involve careful adherence to due process, including clear presentation of evidence, the ability for defendants to challenge charges, and the right to submit final written arguments. He argued that in Kanu’s case, several of these safeguards were compromised, undermining confidence in the judicial process.
The human rights lawyer further noted that procedural irregularities, such as foreclosure of defense, denial of final written submissions, and hurried judgments, are departures from how terrorist trials are usually conducted. He emphasized that these deviations suggest the trial was influenced by external pressures rather than being purely legal in nature.
Opara concluded that despite the life imprisonment sentence handed to Kanu, it remains crucial to scrutinize the manner in which the trial was conducted. He reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring that legal standards are upheld and that his client’s rights are protected, emphasizing that fairness and adherence to proper procedures are essential even in high-profile cases involving terrorism charges. View, More,
Explore More News By Using The Button.