Mr. Kanu, currently dealing with terrorism-related charges at the Federal High Court in Abuja, recently declined to present his defense, arg...
Mr. Kanu, currently dealing with terrorism-related charges at the Federal High Court in Abuja, recently declined to present his defense, arguing that there were no legitimate accusations against him, even though the court had initially rejected his motion of no case.
Nnamdi Kanu, the head of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has submitted a request to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, aiming to prevent the Federal High Court in Abuja from proceeding with its decision on the terrorism-related charges against him.
Mr. Kanu is being charged with terrorism at the Federal High Court in Abuja, with a scheduled ruling on November 20.
Nevertheless, the IPOB leader, in the submission to the Court of Appeal, requested the superior court to proceed with additional stages of his trial before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Aloy Ejimakor, the special counsel for Mr. Kanu, stated in a post on X on Wednesday that the IPOB leader submitted the application at the appellate court earlier today.
"This could affect the November 20th deadline set for delivering the verdict in the trial," he wrote on his X account.
The attorney also shared on the social media platform a copy of Mr. Kanu's motion for notice application along with an affidavit that supports his notice.
PREMIUM TIMES previously mentioned on Wednesday that Mr. Kanu, in a comparable request, urged Mr. Omotosho to put the ruling on hold, contending that the case was handled under a law that had been repealed and no longer existed.
What Kanu mentions in the application
Mr. Kanu, in the document dated November 10 but recognized two days later, stated that his request for an order halting the Federal High Court's proceedings related to the terrorism charges against him was intended to allow the review and resolution of the lower court's rulings during the trial.
The leader of IPOB referred to the lower court's rejection of his no-case submission, its refusal to assess its jurisdiction, and the legitimacy of the charges he was facing.
He also expressed concerns about the claimed denial of his ability to defend the case by presenting witnesses.
Although the appellant (Kanu) submitted a list of witnesses to be called in his defense and stated that his defense would proceed immediately after the court determines its jurisdiction and the validity of the charges, the trial court declined and ruled that the decision would only be made on the objections during the judgment.
"The lower court, despite not making a decision on the objection, deprived the appellant of the ability to defend against the serious accusations made against them," he stated.
Continuing, the IPOB leader stated: "In the event the application is denied, the appellant could face an unlawful conviction without having the chance to understand the legitimacy of the charges, the trial court's authority, or to present a defense based on the facts."
In the sworn statement accompanying his request, Mr. Kanu informed the appellate court that he personally submitted the application after taking charge of his legal defense.
The leader of IPOB brought to the court's attention that the lower court had rejected his no-case argument in its decision dated 26 September 2025.
Unhappy with the aforementioned decision, I have submitted an Appeal Notice/ motion to request permission to appeal, along with a Tripartite Application to this esteemed Court, asking for an extension of time to obtain permission, permission to appeal, and an extension to submit the Appeal Notice.
"The argument highlights significant, complex, and constitutional legal issues, including the trial court's use of a repealed statute for Counts 1-6, violation of a binding Supreme Court instruction on Count 7, and failure to apply the required statutory test under Section 303(3)(c) of the ACJA when deciding on a No-Case Submission," he stated.
Background
Mr. Kanu was initially detained in 2015 during the presidency of Muhammadu Buhari.
The leader of IPOB was released and found not guilty by the Court of Appeal in Abuja in 2022, yet the Nigerian government prevented his release.
The government stated that Kanu might not be present in future court sessions if he was set free, and that his release would lead to instability in the South-east, the region he is from.
They later challenged the court's decision and eventually received a suspension of the judgment's enforcement from the Supreme Court.
On 15 December 2023, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision to acquit Mr. Kanu, and therefore directed that his trial proceed at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
On 19 June 2025, the Nigerian authorities concluded their case against the IPOB leader following the fifth prosecution witness being presented and questioned by Mr Kanu's attorney, Onyechi Ikpeazu, before Judge James Omotosho at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Nevertheless, instead of initiating his defense, Mr. Kanu, via his legal representatives, submitted a no-case argument in an attempt to have the charges dropped, claiming that the evidence provided by the prosecution did not form a sufficient case against him to require him to present any defense.
Although there was initial resistance from the prosecution attorneys, the court eventually approved Mr. Kanu's request for a no-case submission.
However, on 26 September, the court rejected the no-case argument presented by Mr. Kanu and instructed him to submit his response.
On 24 October, the Biafra activist made an unexpected decision by dismissing all his legal representatives and chose to represent himself, subsequently listing prominent former and current government officials as witnesses for his upcoming defense.
On October 27, Mr. Kanu informed the court that he would not present his defense in the terrorism case, maintaining that there were no legitimate charges filed against him.
He stated that he had examined the prosecution's case and determined it was not worth defending.
However, Mr. Omotosho instructed Mr. Kanu to submit a written statement regarding this and deliver it to the prosecution.
The judge further recommended that he seek guidance from specialists in criminal law regarding the consequences of his choice prior to postponing the trial until November 4.
On the rescheduled date, the IPOB leader submitted a written statement, maintaining that there were no legitimate charges against him, leading the judge to set 20 November as the date for a ruling.
Copyright 2025 Premium Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (okay1).
Tagged: Nigeria, Governance, Legal and Judicial Affairs, West Africa
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
COMMENTS