The Federal High Court in Abuja has set November 20 as the day it will deliver judgment in the terrorism case involving the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu. The presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, fixed the date after Kanu failed to open his defence despite being given six days to do so. The case, which has spanned years and drawn global attention, continues to stir debates around fair trial rights, national security, and the limits of lawful dissent in Nigeria.
When the court resumed proceedings on Friday, the atmosphere in the courtroom reflected a mix of anticipation and tension. Supporters of the IPOB leader gathered quietly in the public gallery as the defence team prepared to make new submissions. After reviewing the case record, Justice Omotosho noted that the six days earlier granted to Kanu to open his defence had expired without him presenting any evidence or calling witnesses.
The judge explained that the court gave Kanu adequate opportunity to defend himself but he chose not to take advantage of it. He stressed that the principle of fair hearing requires that every accused person be given a chance to defend themselves, but it does not compel them to do so. According to the judge, Kanu’s failure to use the time allotted for his defence means he cannot later argue that the court denied him the opportunity to present his case.
Justice Omotosho then announced that judgment would be delivered on November 20. He said both the prosecution and defence had made their written submissions and that the court would now consider all arguments before reaching a final decision. The announcement brought a mix of reactions—some observers expressed relief that the trial might soon end, while others feared the judgment could deepen political and social divisions across parts of the country.
Kanu, however, used the court session to challenge the very foundation of his trial. Speaking through his legal counsel, he argued that the charge of terrorism no longer exists under Nigerian law. His argument rested on the claim that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, under which the government charged him, has been repealed and replaced by another legal framework that does not sustain the offences listed against him.
He maintained that since the former law no longer exists, the prosecution cannot rely on it to continue his trial. According to him, the government has no valid legal basis to keep him in custody or continue the proceedings. He urged the court to dismiss the charges outright and order his immediate release. His position, he explained, stems from a constitutional principle that no one should be tried under a non-existent law.
Kanu’s motion to strike out the charges reignited discussions about the legality of his continued detention. His supporters inside and outside the courtroom nodded in agreement as his lawyers laid out the argument. They described the charges as politically motivated and said the prolonged trial reflects the government’s unwillingness to address deeper political grievances in the South-East region.
The prosecution, led by lawyers representing the Federal Government, countered Kanu’s argument, insisting that terrorism remains an offence under Nigerian law. They said the current legal framework continues to criminalize acts of terrorism, secession, and threats to national unity. The government’s team maintained that repealing or amending a law does not automatically erase crimes committed under it, especially when the alleged acts predate the changes in legislation.
According to the prosecution, Kanu faces charges for acts that occurred before and after the alleged repeal of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act. They said his activities, speeches, and directives through IPOB channels contributed to violence in parts of the country and that the charges remain valid. The government asked the court to disregard Kanu’s argument and proceed to judgment based on the evidence already before it.
As the court listened to both sides, it became clear that the case had evolved beyond legal technicalities. It now represents a broader test of Nigeria’s judicial process, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving national security and individual rights. Many Nigerians have followed the proceedings closely, seeing them as a measure of how the country balances law enforcement with democratic freedoms.
Observers note that Kanu’s decision not to open his defence signals a shift in legal strategy. Earlier in the year, he had indicated readiness to call witnesses and present evidence to challenge the charges. But in recent weeks, he reversed course, claiming that the case itself lacks merit and that defending himself against invalid charges would amount to legitimizing an unlawful process.
His legal team said they reviewed the entire case file and concluded that there was no credible evidence linking him to terrorism. They argued that the government has failed to prove any of the allegations, and that continuing the trial amounts to persecution rather than prosecution. They also accused the authorities of using the court system to silence dissent and crush political opposition in the South-East.
Kanu’s supporters outside the courthouse echoed these sentiments, waving flags and chanting slogans calling for his release. Security operatives maintained heavy presence around the court premises, preventing any disruptions or large gatherings. The government remains firm in its position that IPOB, under Kanu’s leadership, poses a threat to national unity and peace. Officials point to past incidents of violence and attacks on security facilities as evidence of the group’s dangerous activities.
Over the years, Kanu’s detention and trial have sparked multiple protests and calls for political dialogue. Civil society groups, human rights advocates, and international observers have repeatedly urged the government to ensure fairness and transparency in the proceedings. Some argue that the government’s handling of Kanu’s case could either ease or worsen tensions in the South-East, depending on the eventual outcome.
Within the courtroom, Kanu appeared calm as proceedings unfolded. He wore a simple outfit and occasionally whispered to his lawyers as the judge delivered rulings. His tone during the motion was firm but controlled, showing determination to challenge the legal foundation of the charges rather than engage in a drawn-out defence. His strategy seems to hinge on dismantling the legal framework of the case instead of proving innocence through witnesses or evidence.
The government, however, believes the case must run its full course. Prosecutors insist that Kanu must answer for his alleged actions, which they claim incited violence and emboldened separatist movements across several states. They argue that allowing him to walk free without trial would set a dangerous precedent that could embolden others to defy the state.
Despite these opposing narratives, both sides now await the court’s judgment. Analysts expect that the ruling on November 20 will mark a critical moment in Nigeria’s legal and political history. If the court agrees with Kanu’s argument that terrorism is no longer an offence under the repealed law, it could lead to his release and a potential reshaping of how such cases are prosecuted. However, if the court upholds the government’s position, Kanu could face continued detention and possible sentencing.
Legal experts describe the case as one of the most complex in Nigeria’s recent judicial history. It blends constitutional interpretation, criminal procedure, and political controversy. Some lawyers say Kanu’s motion raises legitimate questions about the consistency of Nigeria’s anti-terrorism laws and their application to politically charged cases. Others argue that his claim about the repeal of the terrorism law oversimplifies the situation, since elements of that law were integrated into subsequent legislation.
For the Nigerian public, the case has also become a symbol of deeper frustrations about justice and governance. Many Nigerians, regardless of region or political affiliation, see the prolonged detention and repeated adjournments as evidence of inefficiency in the justice system. Some feel that the matter has dragged on too long, turning from a legal issue into a political standoff between the state and a secessionist leader.
As the trial nears its conclusion, opinions remain divided. Supporters of Kanu insist that he stands as a freedom fighter advocating for the rights of the Igbo people and calling attention to decades of perceived marginalization. Opponents view him as a destabilizing figure whose rhetoric and actions have endangered national peace.
Whatever the outcome on November 20, the judgment will carry enormous political weight. A ruling in Kanu’s favor could reignite calls for greater autonomy in the South-East and inspire other regional movements. Conversely, a conviction could strengthen the government’s stance on national unity but may also inflame tensions in areas already dealing with security challenges.
The case has transcended the courtroom to become a broader reflection of Nigeria’s struggle to balance justice with political realities. It highlights the tension between state power and individual rights, as well as the ongoing debate about how to handle separatist movements in a multi-ethnic country. For Kanu, the outcome could determine not only his personal freedom but also the future of his movement.
As Justice Omotosho closed the session and fixed November 20 for judgment, silence filled the courtroom. Lawyers gathered their files, security personnel guided the defendant out, and observers slowly left the premises, each aware that the next ruling could reshape one of Nigeria’s most contentious political sagas. Kanu’s final words before leaving were brief but firm: he reiterated that he faces no legitimate charge under Nigerian law and should walk free.