The long-running legal saga surrounding Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is approaching a critical juncture. The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled November 20 for judgment in the terrorism case that has gripped Nigeria’s political and judicial landscape since 2015.
Kanu, who has been in detention for years, recently made headlines by refusing to present a defense despite being granted six consecutive days to do so. Instead, he filed a motion challenging the very foundation of the charges against him. His argument? That terrorism is no longer a recognized offense in Nigeria, citing the alleged repeal of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.
In a bold legal maneuver, Kanu asked the court to dismiss all charges, expunge his earlier “not guilty” plea, and declare all proceedings null and void. This motion, however, was met with firm resistance from Federal Government counsel Adegoboyega Awomolo, who insisted that the trial had followed due process and that Kanu’s refusal to defend himself was a deliberate choice.
Justice James Omotosho, presiding over the case, acknowledged the numerous delays that have plagued the trial but emphasized that his court had ensured a fair hearing. He noted that Kanu had been given ample opportunity to present his case, including personal appeals from the bench. Citing Supreme Court precedents, Omotosho ruled that a defendant who declines to use their right to a fair hearing cannot later claim it was denied.
With the judgment date set, Nigeria watches closely. The outcome could have far-reaching implications not only for Kanu and IPOB but also for how terrorism-related cases are prosecuted in the country.