Nnamdi Kanu, the arrested leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), will learn his destiny today when the Federal High Court in Abuja renders a decision in his protracted legal dispute with the federal government.
Kanu’s challenge to the validity of the terrorism accusations against him and his request for release on the grounds of alleged wrongful imprisonment and violation of his fundamental rights are among the applications filed by both parties that Judge James Omotosho is anticipated to rule on.
Kanu has been detained by the Department of State Services since June 2021 as a result of what his attorneys refer to as “extraordinary rendition” from Kenya. He is accused of seven terrorism-related offenses, including incitement, operating an illegal organization, and actions deemed dangerous to national security, all of which he denies.
The IPOB leader claimed in a new motion that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, which he was being tried under, had been repealed.
Declaring that the charges “disclosed no offence known to law” and were therefore void, he urged the court to dismiss them.
Kanu further requested that the court erase the “purported plea of not guilty” that was filed on his behalf, arguing that it was gained by deceit and in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision.
He also requested an order directing his immediate release and nullifying any further proceedings.
Kanu is blamed by the judge for not opening the defense.
However, after the prosecution concluded its evidence on June 19, 2025, Justice Omotosho pointed out that Kanu had not used the six days given to him to begin his defense.
After granting several adjournments at the defense’s request for witness cross-examination, the judge declared that the court could not be charged with depriving him of a fair hearing.
He noted that the defendant’s no-case submission had previously been rejected, and he was instructed to present his defense. Kanu first consented to this order, but he then renounced it, claiming that his trial was void.
“The defendant has not shown seriousness in the proceedings,” stated Omotosho. In God’s name, I personally urged him to defend himself and seek legal assistance.
He decided, citing Supreme Court authorities, that the court cannot force a defendant to enter a defense if he does not take advantage of a fair hearing.
He decided that Kanu had essentially given up his right to a defense, allowing the court to set a judgment date.
Despite the fact that the case was filed in 2015, Justice Omotosho pointed out that it was delayed before being transferred to his courtroom this year and given an expedited hearing.
Before concluding its case, the prosecution called five witnesses and submitted a number of exhibits.
The case, which has seen multiple adjournments, motions, appeals, and counter-applications from both parties, now rests on today’s ruling, which will decide whether Kanu is released from custody or continues to face charges relating to terrorism.
