Kanu Shifts Legal Strategy in Ongoing Trial
The trial of the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, took another turn on Monday as he abandoned his earlier plan to call witnesses in his ongoing case before the Federal High Court in Abuja. The courtroom atmosphere was tense as his decision surprised both the prosecution and his supporters who had gathered in anticipation of a dramatic session.
Kanu faces a seven-count terrorism charge filed by the Federal Government. The charges accuse him of acts that threaten national security and public order. The case has dragged on for years and drawn global attention. Each hearing attracts heavy security presence and large crowds of sympathizers, many of whom see him as a symbol of self-determination and resistance.
A Sudden Change After Delay
Last Friday, Kanu appeared before the same court and requested an adjournment. He told the presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, that his former legal team, led by the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), had not released his case file. Without the file, he claimed he could not properly continue his defence. The court granted his request and fixed Monday for continuation.
Before Monday’s session, Kanu had filed a written notice to the court showing readiness to open his defence. He had indicated his intention to call witnesses who, according to him, would expose inconsistencies in the government’s case. He also asked the court to issue witness summons to compel their appearance. His supporters interpreted that move as confidence that his legal team had uncovered evidence that could change the direction of the case.
Kanu Declares “No Valid Charge Exists”
However, when the matter resumed, Kanu announced a complete shift in strategy. Standing in the dock, dressed in his usual plain outfit, he told the court that after reviewing his case file, he saw no valid charge against him. He said the entire process amounted to an abuse of judicial procedure and that the prosecution had failed to link him to any credible offence.
Kanu declared that since he believed the charges were legally defective, he would not proceed to call witnesses or continue with any form of defence. He argued that continuing the defence would amount to recognizing a case that did not exist in law. His statement caused murmurs across the courtroom as his supporters whispered among themselves, surprised at his sudden change of heart.
He spoke calmly but firmly, insisting that no valid case stood before the court. According to him, the charges were products of political persecution rather than genuine legal reasoning. He reminded the court that he had been held in detention for years, despite multiple appeals for fair hearing and access to medical care. His decision, he said, was not driven by fear but by conviction that the entire process was unconstitutional.
Reactions from the Prosecution and the Court
The prosecution team appeared startled by Kanu’s announcement. They had expected to begin cross-examining his witnesses that day. Their lead counsel immediately requested clarification on whether Kanu’s decision meant he had closed his case or if it was merely a procedural argument. Justice Omotosho intervened to restore order, reminding both parties that the court must proceed according to law.
The judge then directed Kanu to put his position into writing. He ordered him to file a formal written address explaining his argument that no case had been established. The judge also instructed him to serve the prosecution with a copy to allow them respond appropriately. Justice Omotosho explained that such a written submission would help the court determine whether there was indeed no valid case or whether Kanu still had a defence to make.
Justice Omotosho also advised the IPOB leader to consult legal experts before finalizing his decision. He reminded him that criminal law carries serious consequences and that any step taken in court must be carefully considered. The judge’s tone was measured and neutral, emphasizing that while Kanu had the right to express his belief, he must follow due process.
Next Phase of the Case
After the brief exchange, the court adjourned the matter to November 4, 5, and 6. Those dates, the judge said, would be used for the adoption of final written addresses. Depending on Kanu’s final position, the court would either proceed to determine if the prosecution had failed to make a case or resume his defence if he later changes his mind.
Outside the court, the mood among Kanu’s supporters was mixed. Some expressed disappointment, saying they had expected him to open his defence fully and expose what they called the government’s inconsistencies. Others saw his action as a smart legal move, describing it as a way of challenging the legitimacy of the charges. For many of them, Kanu’s courage inside the courtroom reinforced their belief that he remains strong despite years in detention.
Years of Legal and Political Battles
Kanu’s legal battles have become one of the most discussed judicial cases in Nigeria. Since his arrest and extradition in 2021, he has remained in the custody of the Department of State Services. His lawyers have repeatedly raised concerns about his health and the conditions of his detention. They have filed multiple applications for bail and for transfer to a more conducive facility, but the court has consistently refused on grounds of national security.
The charges against him include inciting violence, leading an unlawful organization, and engaging in acts that allegedly threaten Nigeria’s sovereignty. The Federal Government has maintained that IPOB’s activities under his leadership contributed to violent unrest in parts of the South-East. The group’s sit-at-home orders, according to the prosecution, caused widespread fear and economic losses. However, Kanu insists he only advocated peaceful self-determination through legitimate means.
Throughout his trial, Kanu has portrayed himself as a political prisoner rather than a criminal suspect. He claims the government wants to silence his voice and that of millions who believe in the Biafra movement. His supporters echo this sentiment, often staging demonstrations outside the court and online campaigns calling for his release. Human rights organizations have also expressed concerns over his prolonged detention, urging the government to respect his right to fair hearing.
Legal Experts React to Kanu’s Decision
Monday’s proceeding, therefore, added another twist to an already complicated legal journey. By declaring that no case exists, Kanu essentially invited the court to either strike out the charges or compel the prosecution to prove otherwise. Legal analysts believe this move could fast-track the conclusion of the case if the court agrees with his argument. However, if the court rules that the prosecution has indeed established a prima facie case, Kanu would have no choice but to open his defence later.
Within legal circles, opinions differ on whether Kanu’s latest strategy will benefit him. Some lawyers say his decision could backfire because the court may interpret it as an unwillingness to defend himself. Others argue that he has the right to challenge the validity of the charges at any stage. They note that similar legal tactics have succeeded in past high-profile cases when courts found defects in government filings.
A Symbol of Protest and Persistence
For Kanu’s family and supporters, the trial represents more than legal arguments. It has become a symbol of the broader debate about justice, freedom, and governance in Nigeria. His movement, despite being banned, continues to inspire loyalty among followers who see him as a hero. His detention, they say, has not silenced the agitation for self-determination but rather deepened it.
Inside the courtroom, the tension between law and politics remains visible. Each proceeding is attended by armed security operatives, court officials, journalists, and supporters waving flags or wearing insignia of the Biafran movement. The atmosphere often feels like a mix of courtroom procedure and political protest. Monday’s hearing followed the same pattern — calm yet charged with emotion.
Awaiting the November Ruling
As the case heads toward November, attention will once again focus on the Federal High Court in Abuja. The coming sessions will determine whether Kanu’s argument of “no case” holds legal water. If the court upholds it, the charges could be dismissed, marking a major victory for him and his followers. But if the court rejects it, Kanu may still have to defend himself against terrorism allegations that carry heavy penalties under Nigerian law.
For now, his statement stands as a bold challenge to the prosecution’s narrative. It reflects a mix of legal defiance and personal conviction. Despite years in detention, Kanu continues to use the courtroom as a platform to assert his beliefs. His refusal to proceed with witnesses may signal confidence that the court will recognize what he calls the “emptiness” of the charges. Or it may reflect a strategic gamble meant to shift the burden entirely to the government.
The Broader Implication for Justice
Whatever the outcome, Kanu’s case remains a defining legal and political battle in Nigeria’s recent history. It tests the balance between national security and individual rights. It questions how far the state can go in responding to separatist agitation. And it highlights the power of one man’s conviction to stir both controversy and courage across the nation.
When Justice Omotosho finally brings down his gavel in November, his ruling will not only determine Kanu’s fate but also influence the broader conversation about justice, governance, and dissent in Nigeria. For now, the world watches as Nnamdi Kanu waits, unyielding, for the next chapter of his long and turbulent trial.