Federal High Court Sets November 20 For Judgment As Nnamdi Kanu Refuses To Open Defense In Terrorism Trial

 

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has scheduled November 20 as the date for delivering judgment in the long-drawn terrorism charges brought by the Federal Government against the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu. The decision came after a tense court session on Friday that saw Kanu once again refuse to open his defense, insisting that there were no longer valid grounds for his trial.

Courtroom observers described the atmosphere as charged, as Kanu, dressed in his usual white attire, maintained a calm yet firm stance throughout the proceedings. The defense team, led by his counsel, reaffirmed their position that the terrorism charges no longer hold legal weight, citing a recent repeal of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act. The team argued that without a valid legal framework recognizing terrorism as an offense, the Federal Government lacked the basis to continue prosecuting Kanu.

Justice Omotosho, after listening to both sides, adjourned proceedings and fixed November 20 for judgment. The judge stated that the matter had reached a crucial point where all arguments and procedural motions had been exhausted, and it was time for the court to decide on the substance of the case.

Kanu’s refusal to open his defense did not come as a surprise to close followers of the case. He has repeatedly maintained that his trial is politically motivated and grounded in what he terms a “legally defective” charge sheet. His argument rests on the claim that the law under which he was charged has been nullified by recent legislative changes, effectively rendering the allegations void. His counsel emphasized that proceeding with the case would amount to a miscarriage of justice and a violation of his constitutional rights.

The Federal Government’s prosecution team, however, countered this argument. They insisted that the repeal of the former Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act did not invalidate offenses committed before the repeal. According to the government lawyers, the doctrine of continuity in criminal law ensures that actions that were crimes at the time they were committed remain prosecutable even if the enabling statute is later replaced or modified. They urged the court to dismiss Kanu’s motion as an attempt to frustrate the judicial process and evade accountability.

During Friday’s session, the courtroom was heavily guarded, reflecting the sensitivity surrounding the case. Supporters of Kanu gathered outside the court premises, chanting solidarity songs and calling for his release. Many carried placards demanding justice and accusing the government of persecution. Despite their chants, security operatives maintained strict order, preventing any disruption of court activities.

The case against Kanu has stretched for years, marked by several adjournments, legal arguments, and controversies surrounding his arrest, extradition, and detention. He was first arrested in 2015 on charges including treasonable felony and terrorism-related offenses, before being granted bail in 2017. After fleeing Nigeria, he was later re-arrested abroad in 2021 and brought back to face renewed charges under the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction.

Legal analysts say the November 20 judgment will be a defining moment, not only for Kanu but also for Nigeria’s justice system and its handling of politically sensitive prosecutions. If the court rules in Kanu’s favor, it could set a precedent questioning the government’s interpretation of the repealed terrorism laws. Conversely, a conviction or unfavorable ruling may strengthen the government’s stance on dealing firmly with separatist movements and their leaders.

Public reactions have already begun to surface across social media platforms, with IPOB supporters hailing Kanu’s latest legal maneuver as a bold challenge to what they call “a flawed and outdated system.” On the other hand, critics accuse him of exploiting technicalities to delay justice and avoid facing the substantive issues of national security raised by his activities.

As the nation awaits November 20, attention remains fixed on Justice Omotosho’s bench. The outcome of the judgment will likely resonate beyond the courtroom, influencing both political discourse and the broader question of how Nigeria reconciles national security with the rights of dissenting voices. The case continues to underline the tension between state authority and civil agitation in a country still grappling with issues of identity, justice, and federal unity.

Whether Kanu’s insistence on the invalidity of the terrorism law will sway the court or not remains to be seen. For now, the only certainty is that November 20 will mark another critical chapter in one of Nigeria’s most closely watched trials in recent history.