Court Fixes Date To Deliver Judgement on FG’s Terrorism Case Against IPOB Leader, Nnamdi Kanu

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday fixed November 20 for the delivery of judgment in the terrorism case brought against the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu.

Justice James Omotosho announced the date while ruling on the matter after Kanu failed to open his defence, having exhausted the six days allocated to him by the court to present his case.

The judge held that since Kanu failed to utilise the opportunity granted to him to conduct his defence, he could not claim to have been denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing.

Meanwhile, Kanu on Friday filed a motion challenging his trial on the grounds that terrorism was no longer an offence in Nigeria.

He said the earlier Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed and, as such, there were no valid charges against him.

Kanu maintained that there was no case against him and urged the court to dismiss the charges and allow him to go home.

Recall that on October 16, after the Nigerian Medical Association declared Kanu fit to continue with his trial, Justice Omotosho granted him six consecutive days, beginning from October 23 to 30, to open and close his defence.

“The defendant has until the 30th day of October to close his defence,” Justice Omotosho said.

Kanu, who is facing a seven-count terrorism charge brought against him by the Federal Government, however, exhausted all the given days without entering his defence, insisting that there was no charge against him.

At the resumed hearing, the court stood down to allow Kanu to file the fresh motion.

In the motion, Kanu urged the court to expunge from its record “the purported plea of not guilty entered by him,” claiming it was based on deception and in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision.

He also sought an order setting aside all subsequent proceedings, arguing that they were founded on a nullity.

Kanu further asked the court to hold that the charges disclosed no offence known to law, as they were allegedly based on a repealed terrorism law.

He requested an order striking out the charge for want of jurisdiction and directing his release.

Responding, counsel for the Federal Government, Adegoboyega Awomolo, said there was no need to file any counter-affidavit to Kanu’s motion.

He stated that the prosecution was relying on the court’s records and urged the judge to take judicial notice of the relevant legal developments.

Awomolo added that the defendant was simply refusing to enter his defence, stressing that the trial was being conducted within the ambit of the law.

He urged the court to adjourn for judgment.

In his ruling, Justice Omotosho reiterated the court’s position that no ruling or preliminary objection would be determined at this stage.

He noted that the case was filed in 2015 but suffered delays before being re-assigned to his court earlier this year, where it received an accelerated hearing.

He stated that the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered several exhibits before closing its case on June 19, 2025.

The judge observed that multiple adjournments were granted at the instance of the defendant, who sought to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.

He recalled that Kanu’s no-case submission was earlier overruled, and the defendant was directed to open his defence.

Omotosho emphasised that the court had ensured a fair hearing but noted that Kanu, despite initially agreeing to enter his defence, abandoned it and began claiming that there was no existing law under which he was being tried.

He said the defendant had not demonstrated seriousness in the proceedings, adding that he had personally appealed to Kanu “in God’s name” to present his defence and engage counsel.

Citing Supreme Court authorities, Omotosho held that if a defendant fails to utilise the opportunity of a fair hearing, the court cannot compel him to enter his defence.

The judge ruled that it was on this basis that Kanu had waived his right to defence and proceeded to fix a date for judgment.

Credit: Punch