By Francis Ajuonuma
The long-drawn trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPoB), Nnamdi Kanu, has once again hit a brick wall- this time over bureaucratic lapses and institutional delay in producing a medical report ordered by the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Justice James Omotosho was on Wednesday forced to adjourn the terrorism trial to October 16, after the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) failed to submit its findings on Kanu’s health condition. This report was supposed to determine his fitness to stand trial and the adequacy of the medical facilities at the Department of State Services (DSS) detention centre.
At the last sitting, the court had directed the NMA president to constitute an independent medical board to examine the IPOB leader, following complaints by his lawyers that his health had deteriorated while in DSS custody.
But the NMA, a professional body expected to uphold ethics and transparency, failed to comply with the directive within the stipulated time.
Counsel to the Federal Government, Suraj S’aad, admitted during proceedings that the medical board contacted them to say the report was “not ready.”
The disclosure drew quiet frustration from observers who saw it as yet another example of how state institutions delay justice in high-profile cases. With no objection from the defence, the court reluctantly adjourned.
Legal analysts argue that the NMA’s failure to act promptly not only undermines judicial authority but also deepens the public perception that the Nigerian justice system is easily influenced by administrative inertia.
“When professional bodies cannot comply with simple judicial directives, justice becomes a mirage,” one senior lawyer remarked outside the courtroom.
Kanu, who has been in the custody of the DSS for years, faces a seven-count charge of terrorism-related offences.
On September 26, Justice Omotosho dismissed the defendant’s no-case submission, ruling that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, requiring the defendant to open his defence.
While the court had maintained that Kanu must be given a fair hearing and medical attention in line with constitutional guarantees, Wednesday’s proceedings exposed, yet again, the slow and fragmented coordination between the judiciary, medical authorities, and security agencies.
Critics say the recurring adjournments not only deny Kanu a speedy trial but also project Nigeria’s justice system as reactive rather than proactive.
As the case drags on, questions persist about whether justice is being served or suffocated by the same institutions meant to uphold it.
With the next hearing now fixed for October 16, all eyes are on the NMA and whether it can finally deliver the long-awaited medical report that has now become a decisive factor in one of Nigeria’s most politically charged trials.
