Court Forecloses Nnamdi Kanu's Defence, Sets Judgment Date
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has officially closed the defence phase in the terrorism trial involving Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Justice James Omotosho has scheduled November 20, 2025 as the date for delivering judgment in this high-profile case.
The decision came on Friday, November 7, 2025, after Justice Omotosho ruled that Kanu had failed to utilize the six days allocated to him by the court to present his defence. The judge emphasized that he would have extended the time if Kanu had at least begun his defence, but the defendant completely failed to open his case.
Judge's Ruling on Fair Hearing Rights
In his detailed ruling, Justice Omotosho addressed the constitutional right to fair hearing, stating that Kanu could not claim denial of this right since he voluntarily chose not to use the opportunity granted to him. The judge drew a biblical analogy, comparing the situation to when God gave Adam the chance to explain why he ate the forbidden fruit.
"I have, as a Christian, given the defendant the opportunity to defend himself," Justice Omotosho stated. "I have on some occasions appealed to him in the name of God and advised him to get the service of a lawyer knowledgeable in criminal procedure."
The judge noted that although the right to fair hearing is constitutionally guaranteed, a defendant cannot complain about being denied this right when they consciously choose not to exercise it. Justice Omotosho formally declared that Kanu had waived his right to open his defence by failing to utilize the ample opportunity provided.
Legal Representation and Court Proceedings
Justice Omotosho reviewed the history of the case, noting that Kanu has always been represented by lawyers since the case began in his court on March 29, 2025, when the defendant initially entered his plea. The judge observed that Kanu's legal representatives had requested several adjournments during the prosecution's case presentation phase.
Even after Kanu dismissed his lawyers, the court noted that he engaged four legal consultants: P. A. N Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Maxwell Opara and Mandela Umegburu. These consultants were consistently present in court during all proceedings, including the Friday session.
The judge also addressed two motions filed by Kanu challenging the court's jurisdiction, indicating that these would be resolved during the final judgment on November 20.
Kanu's Motion and Claims
During Friday's proceedings, when called upon to open his defence, Kanu informed the court that he could not proceed because he had been unable to file a fresh motion with accompanying documents. The judge temporarily stood down the case to allow court registry officials to assist Kanu with filing the necessary documents.
After completing the filing process, Kanu moved a motion dated November 6 but filed on November 7. In his arguments, Kanu challenged the court's jurisdiction, claiming that the terrorism charge against him was invalid because it was based on repealed laws.
He specifically argued that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45 LFN 2004, which form the foundation of the charges, have been repealed. Kanu contended that the court's failure to take judicial notice of these repealed laws rendered all proceedings in the case null and void.
In a surprising claim, Kanu alleged that his trial was part of a conspiracy and accused British authorities of wanting him convicted and jailed, stating he learned about this alleged intention approximately eighteen months earlier.
Despite his criticisms of the legal process, Kanu commended Justice Omotosho for handling the case fairly, stating: "I am most grateful that you are guiding this proceeding the way it should."
Prosecution's Response and Final Ruling
Responding to Kanu's motion, prosecuting lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, stated that he did not need to file a counter affidavit but would rely on exhibits attached to Kanu's motion. These exhibits included court proceedings showing when Kanu's plea was taken, revealing that he initially claimed not to understand count one of the seven-count charge but later admitted understanding it and pleaded not guilty.
Awomolo urged the court to consider Kanu's motion as his defence in the case and opposed the defendant's requests. The prosecution lawyer emphasized that it has always been Kanu's position that the charges are based on repealed laws.
In his final ruling, Justice Omotosho decided that both prosecution and defence would waive their rights to file final written addresses, noting that although Kanu is not a lawyer, the prosecution team consists of legal professionals, giving them an advantage.
The case has now been adjourned until November 20, 2025 for judgment, bringing this long-running legal battle closer to a conclusive resolution.
