Nnamdi Kanu, the imprisoned 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 allegations against him and his request for release on the grounds of alleged wrongful imprisonment and violation of his fundamental rights are among the motions 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 his “extraordinary rendition” from Kenya. He is accused of seven terrorism-related offenses, including incitement, operating an illegal organization, and acts deemed dangerous to national security, which he disputes.
The IPOB leader claimed in a new application that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, which constituted the basis for his trial, had been repealed.
Declaring that the charges “disclosed no offence known to law,” he pleaded with the court to dismiss them.
Additionally, Kanu 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.
Additionally, he requested an order directing his immediate release and nullifying any further actions.
Kanu is blamed by the judge for not opening defense.
However, when the prosecution finished its case on June 19, 2025, Justice Omotosho pointed out that Kanu had not used the six days given to him to begin his defense.
After allowing several adjournments for witness cross-examination at the defense’s request, the judge declared that the court could not be accused of depriving him of a fair trial.
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 unfair.
“The defendant has not shown seriousness in the proceedings,” Omotosho stated. In God’s name, I personally urged him to retain legal counsel and make his defense.
He decided, citing Supreme Court authority, that the court cannot force a defendant to file a defense if he does not take advantage of a fair hearing opportunity.
He decided that Kanu had essentially given up his right to a defense, allowing the court to set a date for the verdict.
Even though the matter was filed in 2015, Justice Omotosho pointed out that it was delayed until it was transferred to his courtroom this year, where it was given an expedited hearing.
Before concluding its case, the prosecution called five witnesses and produced 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 prison or continues to face charges relating to terrorism.
