BREAKING: Court reserves judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s terrorism trial

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has reserved ruling until October 10, 2025, on whether the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, should be discharged or ordered to enter a defence in the ongoing terrorism trial brought by the Federal Government.

At Friday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission filed by Kanu’s defence team and compel the separatist leader to respond to allegations of terrorism, incitement, and the deaths of over 170 security operatives allegedly linked to IPOB activities.

Read Also: Yusuf Buhari thanks Tinubu, Nigerians for support during Father’s burial

Awomolo insisted that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through the testimony of five witnesses and the presentation of video and audio recordings in which Kanu reportedly admitted leading IPOB and calling for violent resistance.

He argued that the court need not evaluate the credibility of witnesses at this stage but only assess whether enough evidence exists for the accused to respond.

“Boasting is not a defence to criminal conduct. If he believes he was joking or acting as a content creator, he should come forward and explain the motivation behind threats and broadcasts that led to bloodshed,” Awomolo stated.

He also dismissed claims that Kanu has been in continuous solitary confinement since 2015, noting the IPOB leader was granted bail in 2017, which was revoked in 2021 after he allegedly violated its conditions.

Awomolo contended that IPOB’s proscription, though challenged, remains valid pending the Supreme Court’s decision and should not be re-litigated in the trial court.

Defence: “He Was Just Boasting. No Law Broken.”

In his response, Kanu’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), a former Attorney General of the Federation, argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any criminal wrongdoing by his client.

He maintained that the charges were politically motivated and based more on perception than law.

Agabi asserted that no prosecution witness testified to being incited or harmed by Kanu’s broadcasts.

He described Kanu’s rhetoric as “mere boasting,” similar to many political speeches, and said such expression did not meet the threshold of criminal incitement.

“You don’t jail a man for boasting. If that’s the case, we’ll need a whole new set of prisons to hold all the politicians,” Agabi quipped.

Read Also: Nigeria’s Royal Powerhouses: 6 Most influential traditional rulers today

He also said Kanu’s mental state had deteriorated due to prolonged solitary confinement, reportedly lasting over six years, and cited international conventions limiting such confinement to a maximum of 15 days.

The defence criticised the prosecution’s case as vague and poorly investigated, noting that most evidence was hearsay and the witnesses, all drawn from the Department of State Services (DSS), were unable to recall basic facts under cross-examination.

“They said ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I can’t remember’ over 80 times. That’s not evidence, it’s confusion,” Agabi argued.

On IPOB’s proscription, the defence challenged its legality, pointing out that there is no documented presidential approval as required by law.

He also questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court over charges related to alleged illegal transmission equipment, claiming the Court of Appeal had already ruled those out.

Awaiting the Court’s Decision

Justice Omotosho adjourned the case until October 10 for a ruling on the no-case submission. If the court rules in favour of the prosecution, Kanu will be required to enter a formal defence against the terrorism charges. If the defence prevails, the court may dismiss the case altogether.

Kanu, who has been in DSS custody since June 2021 after his controversial rendition from Kenya, faces multiple terrorism-related charges, including incitement and unlawful possession of a transmitter.

His legal battle has drawn international attention and intensified debates about Nigeria’s handling of separatist movements and human rights.