On 20 November 2025, the Federal High Court delivered Judgment in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (MNK). The Court found him guilty of the terrorism charges leveled against him and handed him a sentence of a lifetime in jail.
The judgment proceedings would be remembered for the fearless outbursts of MNK in open court. In the heat of his volcanic passion, MNK contended that he must be allowed to make his Final Address before the Court delivers its judgment. But the Learned Trial Judge, Hon. Justice J. K. Omotosho refused to countenance MNK’s application at that time and went ahead with the Judgment.
MNK was later led out of the courtroom on the order of the Court as he appeared to be disrupting the court proceedings. But before his forced exit, he persistently roared as he asked the Court, “Show me where you have the right to waive my right to Final Address”. With his thunderous vocality, he echoed the words, “Show me, show me, show me…” I believe everyone watching and following the proceedings would be interested in knowing whether indeed MNK’s right to a Final Address was waived, and if so, whether the court has the right to waive it.
I replayed the video of that particular scene multiple times. Though I disapprove of MNK’s direct and unrestrained confrontation with the Court, I felt some pity for him as his voice screamed out, “Show me where you have the right to waive my right to Final Address”. This moved me to embark on an enquiry regarding this issue of the Final Address. I share my findings and honest opinion below.
What is a Final Address?
In a court action, Final Address is one of the court processes that parties to the case are required to file and orally adopt before judgment is delivered. It is simply a detailed presentation of written legal arguments which each party puts before the court in support of the party’s case. Final Address may also be oral if allowed by the court.
It is tagged “final” because after the Final Address, comes court judgment. It is fundamental because parties use the Final Address to analyze the facts of the case and evidence tendered in court, apply the law to these facts and evidence, and succinctly explain to the court the bases upon which the party is urging the court to deliver judgment in the party’s favour. The Final Address is capable of assisting the court in its mission to resolve the issues and decide a given case. In Ndu v. The State [1990] 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 550 the Supreme Court explained one of the importance of a Final Address thus:
A good address may provide a judge a clear mental opinion to perceive either the tenuousness in what had appeared impregnable or to see through the veneer and discover the hard core of a party’s case.
Legal Provision for Final Address
Final Address is so important that it was specifically mentioned in Section 294(1) of the Nigeria 1999 Constitution (as amended). That section mandates a court to “deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses…”
Final Address is a right and not a privilege. As such, parties are entitled, as of right, to address the court before judgment. Denial of the right to Final Address is a denial of fair hearing and can nullify the entire proceedings. This is the position of the courts in many cases such as Ndu v. The State.
Are there instances where Final Addresses may be dispensed with?
Notwithstanding the importance of a Final Address, there are instances it may be dispensed with and the court may validly proceed without it. In the case of Ndu v. The State, the Supreme Court held that the right of address given to a party or his counsel does not confer on him the right to do so at his pleasure. A party or counsel may be taken to have waived the right of address if the party fails to address when called upon by the Court to do so at the close of evidence. Also, it has been held that there are occasions when addresses from counsel are a matter of formality. They may not diminish or add to the strength or weakness in a party’s case. The facts and the law applicable in such cases speak loudly for themselves to require address.
In Niger Construction Limited v. Okugbeni [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 787 at 792 it was held that when the facts are straightforward and, in the main, not in dispute, the trial Judge would be free to dispense with final addresses. Again, the Court observed that cases are normally not decided on addresses but on credible evidence. Addresses, no matter how brilliant, can never take the place of evidence.
Furthermore, in Ekpe v. State (2021) LPELR-55930 (CA), it was held that an accused person who refuses to file a Final Address when given the opportunity to do so cannot complain of denial of fair hearing.
What is the Consequence of Failure to Allow Final Address?
Interestingly, the Constitution itself provides that failure to comply with Section 294 (1) which provides for the ninety-days period for delivery of judgment after conclusion of evidence and final addresses does not automatically mean such judgment would amount to a nullity. Section 294 (5) provides:
The decision of a court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section unless the court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal from or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof.
Note that any reliance on Section 294 (1) of the Constitution as a basis for upholding the right to a Final Address must recognize the provisions of Section 294 (5). Thus, going by the provisions of Section 294 (5), the absence of a Final Address does not automatically mean that the court’s decision would be rendered a nullity. The aggrieved party must prove that he suffered a miscarriage of justice.
In this sense, it is difficult for a defendant like MNK who opted to defend himself after doing away with his lawyers, refused legal representation offered by the court (as seen in page 43 of the Judgment), and failed to put in his defence, to prove miscarriage of justice caused by the alleged failure to be allowed to make a Final Address.
Was MNK denied the right to make a Final Address?
Having briefly run through the position of the law as regards a Final Address, the next thing is for us to determine how it applies to the case of MNK. Justice Omotosho gave a clear account of how his Lordship approached the issue of Final Address in that case. At pages 45-46 of the Judgment, his Lordship narrated:
The Court on the 27th of October, 2025 made an order that the Defendant come on the next date to put in his defence or file his Final Address or any written address filed would be deemed his Final Address in this suit. Pursuant to the order of this Court made on 27th October, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion on Notice/Comprehensive Written Address on non-existence of any cognizable charge and the unconstitutionality of continuing of trial, filed on 30th October, 2025 and same will be deemed to be his Final Written Address. The import of titling the written address as a Comprehensive Written Address cannot be overemphasized. The word “comprehensive” according to the online version of the Oxford Dictionary is: “including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.” The Defendant in that Motion on Notice and Comprehensive Written Address prayed for reliefs including for the Court to discharge him which is a typical prayer in a Final Written Address in criminal matters. No doubt the Defendant clearly knew what he was doing by opting for final written address in the form of Motion/Comprehensive Written Address in compliance with the order of the Court of 27th October, 2025. This would therefore be treated as the Final Written Address of the Defendant in this suit. Same has been considered in this Judgment.
The vital lesson we learnt from the above narration by the Learned Trial Judge is that as far as the Court was concerned, MNK was given the opportunity to file his Final Address; he filed his Final Address (titled Motion/Comprehensive Written Address); and it was considered by the Court in its Judgment. Therefore, going by the opinion of the Court, there was no denial or waiver of the right to file a Final Address.
It is pertinent to note that courts are not generally bound by the title of documents. Courts have a duty to carefully consider the contents of documents in order to determine their true nature and legal implication. This was what Justice Omotosho did in his Lordship’s interpretation of MNK’s process titled “Motion/Comprehensive Written Address”.
Meanwhile, it seems that MNK’s request on the day of judgment to make a Final Address tends to suggest that he does not acknowledge that the Comprehensive Written Address he had earlier filed based on the order of Court made on 27 October 2025 would serve as his Final Address.
To my mind, perhaps during the judgment proceedings, the Court could have allowed MNK to make the (additional) Address as he had prayed (though not humbly). Such an Address could be treated as his oral amplification of his Comprehensive Written Address (Final Address). But the problem is that this might mean allowing MNK to “arrest the Judgment” which courts often disallow.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, it is difficult to sustain the contention that MNK was denied the right to make a Final Address because the trial Court has held that he was indeed given the opportunity to file a Final Address and he filed what was duly considered to be a Final Address. It is equally difficult to fault the decision of the Court to proceed with the Judgment delivery without allowing MNK to make any (further) Final Address as requested.
Above all, even if it is sustained that the trial Court denied MNK the right to make a Final Address, he has a duty to prove that he suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result, in line with Section 294 (5) of the Constitution. Should he succeed in proving a miscarriage of justice on that point, the likely consequence is that a fresh trial would be ordered.
