Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Faces Dramatic Turn As Senior Advocates Withdraw, Court Orders Him To Open Defence

 

A tense courtroom atmosphere enveloped the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday as the terrorism trial of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, took an unexpected twist. The sudden withdrawal of all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) representing the defendant created a vacuum that left the separatist leader standing alone before Justice James Omotosho. The dramatic development added a new layer of complexity to a case that has already spanned years of legal arguments, detentions, and public controversies.

Kanu, dressed in his usual traditional attire, informed the court of his decision to challenge its jurisdiction to continue hearing the matter. Speaking directly from the dock, he reminded the court that the Court of Appeal had previously discharged him from the terrorism charges brought by the Federal Government, arguing that the continued proceedings amounted to a violation of that appellate judgment. His submission came amid visible tension in the courtroom as observers, lawyers, and journalists awaited the court’s next move.

Justice Omotosho, delivering a brief but firm ruling, held that the issue of jurisdiction and other preliminary objections could either be raised before the Court of Appeal or incorporated into the defendant’s final written address. The judge insisted that the trial must proceed and directed Kanu to open his defence on the next adjourned date. He ruled that the court’s order must be obeyed, emphasizing that any challenge to the process would not stall the substantive trial.

The matter was subsequently adjourned till October 24, 2025, for the defendant to commence his defence. Court officials confirmed that Kanu had earlier listed 23 witnesses who are expected to testify on his behalf once the defence phase begins. The witnesses reportedly include members of the Indigenous People of Biafra, close associates, and experts prepared to counter the allegations of terrorism leveled against him.

Observers described the withdrawal of all Senior Advocates as a stunning development that may alter the pace and direction of the trial. Although the exact reasons behind their withdrawal were not disclosed in open court, speculation is rife that deep disagreements over legal strategy and the court’s handling of jurisdictional issues may have prompted the decision. The absence of lead counsel leaves Kanu in a challenging position as he now faces the weight of a federal prosecution team led by senior government lawyers.

The prosecution maintained that the case must proceed since the defendant remains in lawful custody under valid court orders. They insisted that the terrorism charges, comprising seven counts, relate to serious allegations of incitement, unlawful broadcasts, and actions capable of undermining national security. Government representatives at the court reiterated their confidence in the judicial process, expressing belief that justice would ultimately prevail in accordance with the law.

Public reaction to the latest twist has been mixed. Supporters of the IPOB leader have interpreted the withdrawal of his legal team as evidence of systemic pressure and unfair treatment, while others see it as a sign of strategic repositioning ahead of a possible appeal. Human rights groups have renewed calls for transparency in the proceedings and urged the government to ensure that Kanu’s right to fair hearing is not compromised. Outside the court premises, small groups of sympathizers gathered quietly, waving Biafran flags and chanting solidarity songs before being dispersed by security personnel.

This latest phase of the trial comes after years of dramatic turns, including Kanu’s arrest abroad, his extradition to Nigeria, multiple bail revocations, and a landmark appellate judgment that once declared his rendition from Kenya unlawful. Despite the appellate decision, proceedings at the Federal High Court have continued under the argument that certain aspects of the charges remain within the court’s jurisdiction.

Legal analysts suggest that Kanu’s insistence on jurisdictional challenges reflects a broader battle over the scope of federal authority and the boundaries of individual rights in politically sensitive prosecutions. They argue that the court’s firm stance on moving the trial forward underscores the judiciary’s determination to bring the case to a conclusion, but it also raises questions about how appellate decisions are implemented in practice.

As the October 24 hearing approaches, all eyes will once again turn to the Federal High Court in Abuja. Whether Nnamdi Kanu will choose to represent himself, appoint a new legal team, or persist in challenging the court’s authority remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the outcome of this next phase could have far-reaching implications not only for Kanu himself but also for the broader national conversation on justice, dissent, and the rule of law in Nigeria.