In a significant development in Abuja, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court has ordered separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu—head of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)—to either present his defence by November 5, 2025, or be deemed to have waived that right.
Kanu, who is representing himself after parting ways with his legal team, has repeatedly refused to open his defence. He argues there is no valid charge against him, asserting the terrorism statute under which he is charged has been repealed and thus he cannot mount a defence under a non-existent law.
The court previously dismissed Kanu’s “no-case” submission—his argument that the prosecution had failed to present credible evidence.
Accordingly, Justice Omotosho held that a prima facie case has been established and Kanu must now either proceed with defence or allow judgment to proceed on the evidence already presented.
The prosecution alleges Kanu gave broadcasts between 2018-2021 that incited disruption in Nigeria’s south-east and that he imported a transmitter concealed in a container of household items—charges Kanu and his supporters strongly deny.
Kanu’s lawyers and IPOB claim the charges are being pursued under outdated or repealed laws (specifically, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013), and argue that Nigeria’s newer terrorism statute cannot be applied retroactively in this case.
The case has drawn domestic and international attention, including criticism from Igbo regional ministers and rights-groups about the legality of his rendition from Kenya in 2021 and the fairness of the trial process.
Amid the proceedings, the court heard from a witness for the Department of State Services (DSS) who admitted no weapon or instrument of terrorism was recovered from Kanu.
Separately, mass protests erupted in Abuja over Kanu’s detention, met by heavy police response involving tear gas and roadblocks.
If Kanu fails to open his defence by November 5, the court may proceed to judgment based on the prosecution evidence without hearing from him.
Given Kanu’s insistence he has “no case to answer”, the next few days are pivotal. The defence’s choice to either engage or abstain will shape the legal trajectory of a case already laden with complex questions of law, jurisdiction and political rights.
