The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Kanu

  • Kanu and prison insecurity

    Kanu and prison insecurity

    From all indications, the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) must take security at the Sokoto Custodial Centre more seriously due to the presence of Nnamdi Kanu, the jailed leader of the separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).  He was moved there following his life sentence for terrorism-related crimes.

    Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who jailed Kanu for life, was quoted as saying the Kuje Custodial Centre, Abuja, may be unsafe for him, given the number of killings linked to his directives.

    However, moving him to the Sokoto Custodial Centre is also concerning due to the identified security challenges facing the country’s custodial facilities.  

    Nigeria’s custodial centres are facing “escalating security challenges,” according to a report by the European Union (EU) Agency for Asylum, published in November. The country itself is in the middle of an unrelenting security crisis. There may well be a connection between the two. 

    The report noted that Nigeria has experienced a decade-long “pattern of prison jailbreaks, resulting in thousands of inmates escaping correctional facilities nationwide.” It said the problem was mainly due to systemic weaknesses, including overcrowding, structural deficiencies, and chronic underfunding.

    For instance, the report cited a March 2025 incident “when 12 inmates escaped from the Koton Karfe Medium Security Custodial Centre in Kogi State. Only five were recaptured.”

    Read Also: FG rolls out MOFI awards for public enterprises

    Strikingly, at the time, their escape was said to have happened after they succeeded in opening the padlocks in a section of the facility.  They were said to have left the prison through a collapsed window. Witnesses were reported saying the escapees had tied up two prison officers. Tragically, another officer, Senior Correctional Assistant Shuaibu King David, was killed. The Controller-General of NCoS, Sylvester Ndidi Nwakuche, ordered a comprehensive investigation into the incident and a security audit across correctional facilities nationwide. 

    The EU report noted that “This marked the fourth jailbreak at this facility in 13 years, where nearly 700 inmates have fled, including about 100 freed during a 2012 Boko Haram attack.”

    The recurring breakouts were attributed to “security gaps, together with possible insider complicity, which exacerbate the prisons’ vulnerabilities, especially amid attacks by armed groups like Boko Haram.”

    In February, escapees from Nigeria’s correctional centres in 2021 and 2022, who had not been recaptured, were reported to be about 4,000. This is alarming. Also disturbing is that this could be a conservative estimate.

    The estimated 4,000 escapees, from at least eight jailbreaks across the country in 2021 and 2022, who were said to be at large, pose a serious danger to society as many of them may well be dangerous criminals.  The series of jailbreaks in the two years further exposed poor security at the country’s correctional centres.

    The authorities must ensure that Kanu is not only safe in his new space but also securely imprisoned.

  • Kanu: Twists and turns of a decade-long trial

    Kanu: Twists and turns of a decade-long trial

    The nearly 10-year trial of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, witnessed several dramatic twists, writes Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE.

    By his final pronouncement on November 20, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja brought to a close the long-running terrorism trial of Kanu.

    The case, which began in 2015, was punctuated by repeated disruptions, withdrawals by judges, dramatic outbursts and unexpected legal manoeuvres, many of which contributed to its prolonged lifespan.

    After convicting him on all the counts, Justice Omotosho imposed life imprisonment on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 (terrorism-related offences), 20 years imprisonment (no fine option) on Count 3 (membership of a proscribed terrorist group), and five years imprisonment (no fine option) on Count 7 (unlawful importation of a radio transmitter to further Radio Biafra broadcasts).

    The judge remarked that although the Terrorism Prevention Act under which Kanu was convicted prescribes the death penalty, he chose not to impose it “as a Christian” and due to the growing unpopularity of the death sentence globally.

    He cited an admonition from Matthew 23:22-23 on the virtues of mercy.

    Nonetheless, he insisted that Kanu showed no remorse for his “atrocities”.

    First judge withdraws

    Kanu was arrested by Department of State Services (DSS) operatives in Room 303 of the Essential Airport Hotel, Lagos, on October 14, 2015.

    He was moved to Abuja and first arraigned on November 23, 2015, before a Magistrate’s Court in Wuse Zone 2, with Shuaibu Usman presiding.

    Following the filing of a six-count charge, Kanu, alongside Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, was brought before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court on December 23, 2015.

    At the mention of the case on December 23, 2015, Kanu requested to address the court before the charges were read.

    Granted permission, he announced that he had no confidence in the court’s ability to ensure justice.

    He said: “Based on information available to me, I am convinced that I will not receive a fair trial before this court…

    “I would rather remain in detention than subject myself to a trial that amounts to a perversion of justice.”

    Although prosecutor Mohammed Diri opposed his stance, Justice Mohammed agreed to withdraw from the case.

    “Justice is rooted in confidence,” he said, emphasising that a defendant had the right to raise such an objection.

    Second judge withdraws

    The case was reassigned to Justice John Tsoho, but on September 26, 2016, he also withdrew after Kanu’s lawyer, Chuks Muoma (SAN), requested that he step aside on grounds of alleged bias.

    Muoma claimed the judge acted in line with comments previously made by then-President Muhammadu Buhari about Kanu’s continued detention.

    Justice Tsoho denied bias but returned the case file to the Chief Judge, criticising the defence lawyer’s conduct as unprofessional.

    Third judge steps aside

    On September 24, 2024, Justice Binta Nyako, who had taken over the case, also returned the file to the Chief Judge after Kanu directly accused her of failing to obey the Supreme Court’s directives.

    Interrupting his lawyer, Kanu told the court: “My Lord, I have no confidence in this court anymore…

    “I ask you to recuse yourself because you did not abide by the Supreme Court’s decision.”

    Despite prosecutor Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) urging her to ignore the outburst, Justice Nyako recused herself.

    Journey to Supreme Court

    On December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the October 13, 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal barring the Federal Government from further prosecuting Kanu.

    A five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, ordered that Kanu be tried on the surviving seven counts in the original 15-count amended charge on which he was re-arraigned before a Federal High Court in Abuja.

    Kanu, shortly after he was brought back from Kenya by the Federal Government on June 27, 2021, challenged the competence of the amended 15-count charge filed against him by the prosecution.

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu: Court faults reports of attempt on Justice Omotosho’s life

    In a ruling on April 8, 2022, Justice Nyako struck out eight out of the 15 counts, leaving seven.

    Rather than submitting to trial based on the surviving seven counts, Kanu challenged the April 8, 2022 ruling at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

    He also queried the propriety of how he was brought back to the country from Kenya by the Nigerian government, alleging extraordinary rendition.

    The Court of Appeal, in its judgment on October 13, 2022, faulted the manner the Federal Government brought him back into the country.

    The Appeal Court quashed the remaining seven counts left in the 15-count charge, acquitted him and ordered his release from custody.

    The Appeal Court was of the view that the Federal Government violated the rules of engagement in the way and manner Kanu was arrested in Kenya and brought to Nigeria.

    The Court of Appeal added that the Federal Government breached international laws and resorted to self-help in its failure to file a formal extradition application against Kanu in Kenya, but chose to resort to unlawful abduction and rendition.

    Before the judgment could be executed, the Federal government applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending the determination of its appeal against the judgment, an application the Court of Appeal granted.

    It subsequently appealed the judgment at the Supreme Court, with Kanu filing a cross-appeal.

    The Supreme Court’s decision

    In its judgment on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal by Kanu.

    It reversed the October 13, 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting Kanu and held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have discharged and acquitted Kanu on the ground that the prosecution acted illegally in the manner the IPOB leader was brought back from Kenya.

    Attempt to force Justice Omotosho out

    After Justice Nyako’s recusal, Kanu attempted the same strategy on November 20, 2025, accusing Justice Omotosho of bias as the court prepared to deliver judgment.

    He shouted at the judge, prompting Justice Omotosho to briefly stand down proceedings before returning to deliver the ruling.

    Kanu filed a fresh motion seeking to halt proceedings pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of new issues he raised. He also sought bail.

    Justice Omotosho dismissed the applications and moved on to deliver judgment.

    Sacking of lawyers

    Kanu dismissed his legal teams on two occasions.

    The first was in 2023, after his lawyers, led by former Attorney-General of the Federation Kanu Agabi (SAN), publicly apologised on his behalf following a Supreme Court ruling.

    Kanu said he never authorised the apology.

    He sacked his legal team again on October 23, 2025, confirming in court that he had discharged about five Senior Advocates.

    After firing his lawyers, Kanu represented himself, filing processes in his own name despite repeated warnings from the court that he needed qualified legal representation.

    Lawyers turned consultants

    Some of his former lawyers, including Maxwell Opara, PAN Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor and Mandela Umegburu, continued to attend proceedings as “consultants,” offering him informal guidance.

    House of Reps member pleads allocutus

    When Kanu was convicted on all seven counts, he had already been removed from the courtroom due to unruly conduct and had no lawyer present to plead for leniency.

    Justice Omotosho invited Ejimakor, one of his consultants, but he declined, saying he lacked instructions.

    A House of Representatives member, Obi Aguocha, who said he represented Kanu’s constituency, stepped forward instead.

    He pleaded: “I appeal for clemency… The country is bleeding; we need peace.”

    He noted that Kanu had missed his family for years.

    Way forward

    Prominent Igbo leaders, political officeholders and legal experts have renewed calls for a political resolution to the case.

    Their messages, delivered separately, converged on one theme: a coordinated, diplomatic and high-level engagement with the Federal Government is now the most viable path to restoring peace in the Southeast.

    Strategy must replace showmanship, says Ejiofor

    Kanu’s former lawyer, Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, urged Ndigbo to replace what he described as “theatrical showmanship” with a sober, well-structured strategy.

    He warned against emotional reactions and scattered interventions.

    Ejiofor said the moment required “a sharp distinction between sober strategy and theatrical showmanship,” adding that the case had grown too complex for “unguarded proclamations” and fragmented advocacy.

    According to him, the next phase must be driven by a select team of Igbo political leaders and globally recognised legal minds.

    He said: “It has become imperative that Igbo political heavyweights and legal minds of enviable global repute immediately swing into coordinated action.”

    Ejiofor insisted that before any legal step, including filing an appeal, “this combined political–legal taskforce must visit Mazi Nnamdi Kanu… to secure his explicit mandate and align on a unified strategy.”

    He warned that filing an appeal without political groundwork would amount to a process “dead on arrival, smothered under prejudice and procedural quicksand.”

    He appealed for calm within Igbo communities worldwide, saying: “All forms of online hostility, emotional eruptions, and counterproductive declarations must cease forthwith.”

    Despite current anxieties, Ejiofor reassured supporters that “all hope is not lost… with coordinated strategy and disciplined execution, we shall ultimately prevail.”

    Otti: high-level dialogue ongoing

    Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, also called for restraint while revealing that he had been pursuing a diplomatic resolution with the Federal Government since December 2023.

    The governor noted that the mishandling of the IPOB issue from inception contributed significantly to today’s crisis.

    Otti said: “I still strongly believe that the poor management of the IPOB issue at the incubation stage created the problem we have today… hence we cannot allow it to linger.”

    He confirmed that an agreed alternative-resolution framework already exists and will now intensify following the judgment.

    “I’m happy to inform you that I have activated and will continue to work on the already agreed strategy until his freedom is secured,” he said.

    Urging calm, he cautioned politicians against exploiting the situation: “I appeal to our people to refrain from utterances and actions capable of stoking fear… and to politicians playing petty politics with Kanu’s travails to jettison the idea.

    “I want to assure our people of my unwavering resolve and commitment to genuinely solving this problem with wisdom, high-level dialogue and diplomacy, with a view to ensuring that genuine peace returns to the Southeast.”

    Bianca advocates collective engagement

    Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, who returned from an official assignment to the news, stressed the need for collective engagement by Igbo leaders rather than emotional reactions.

    “There comes a time… when there is need for calm. I therefore advise Ndigbo that such a period is now,” she stated.

    She warned against actions that could escalate the situation at home or abroad.

    Mrs. Odumegwu-Ojukwu emphasised that the only realistic route out of the crisis lies in diplomatic engagement.

    “The most effective path toward resolution of this crisis is dialogue,” she said.

    She urged governors, lawmakers, traditional rulers and business leaders to “engage with government authorities collectively” and assured that prospects remain for a solution that “reduces national anxiety and societal trauma.”

    Kalu seeks political solution

    Former Abia State Governor, Senator Orji Uzor Kanu, also called for a political solution.

    “The problem of Nnamdi Kanu is what we need to solve via a political process.

    “I have been working with the Federal Government on how to solve this issue, and nobody should question the decision of Justice Omotosho,” he said.

    Kanu: trial, intrigues, sentence

    Obi: legal processes alone not enough

    Former Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, described the conviction as a moment for national introspection.

    According to him, Kanu’s arrest and trial reflected leadership failure and neglect of genuine grievances.

    “I have always maintained that Mazi Kanu should never have been arrested,” Obi said.

    He argued that inclusive dialogue, not coercion, could have prevented the escalation of tensions, adding: “The concerns Kanu raised were not unheard of… It only required wisdom, empathy, and a willingness to listen.”

    Obi urged the Federal Government to adopt political solutions commonly used worldwide in similar conflicts.

    “Nations resort to political settlements when legal processes alone cannot serve the broader interest of peace and stability,” he said.

    Calling for unity and reconciliation, he appealed to national leaders to intervene.

    “The Presidency, the Council of State and credible statesmen… should rise to the occasion for a lasting solution.”

    Kalu: political solution still possible

    Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Okezie Kalu, said despite Kanu’s conviction, a political solution to secure his release was still possible.

    “It is now time to explore political solutions that had been hindered because the matter was before the court.

    “But now that the court has finished, it is time to intensify the request for the President’s intervention, and we are sure that the President is not averse to it.

    “We are going to get it. All hope is not lost. Our people should remain calm,” Kalu said.

    Ahamba: time ripe for clemency

    Elder statesman and legal luminary, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), said now is the appropriate time to approach President Tinubu to grant clemency to Kanu.

    The SAN noted that while Kanu has the right to appeal, the President now has the constitutional authority to pardon him.

    “So, for those who had been urging the President to release Nnamdi Kanu during the trial, now is the right time for them to do so. Mr President was not competent to do so during the trial,” he said.

    Although an appeal remains an option, he insisted: “Time is now ripe for a reasonable approach to Mr President for clemency.”

  • Grant IPOB leader Kanu state pardon,, group begs Tinubu

    Grant IPOB leader Kanu state pardon,, group begs Tinubu

    The Nigerian Youths Arising (NIYA) has called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to grant clemency to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu. 

    The group described a political solution as the most viable path to resolving the matter, urging the  President to invoke Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution to free Kanu in the wider interest of the country.

    In a statement by its President General, Comr..Ben Emeruwa, and Chief Press Secretary, Comrade C. Innocent, NIYA argued that similar clemency had been extended in the past to  political actors and agitators across the country.

    The group cited the rehabilitation and amnesty granted to some bandits in the North as well as the widely acclaimed amnesty programme for the Niger Delta militants, noting that these measures were implemented to reduce political tension and promote stability. 

    NIYA warned that failure to resolve the matter politically could heighten tension and the prevailing insecurity in the South-East, where many residents of the region believe Kanu’s is being subject to unfair treatment.

    The group said: “We must also point out without any form of equivocation that this is not the first time that such similar clemency has been granted to political offenders. 

    “For example most of the bandits and  terrorists  in northern Nigeria who were arrested, instead of being prosecuted in court were given reorientation, amnesty, and in most recent times some of them were recruited into the Nigerian security forces. All of these were done for the sake of peace and to douse down political tensions within the Nigerian polity. 

    “Another classical example was the case of the Niger-delta militants who were political agitators aggrieved over the then marginalisation of the niger delta people in Nigeria; a political solution was given to them via amnesty given to thousands of militants across the niger-delta region without any criminal prosecution meted on them.Why must the Kanu case be any different?

    It added that granting clemency would give the people of South East a renewed sense of belonging in line with federal character principle enshrined in Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution. 

    Read Also: Transforming Nigeria’s economy: Policies, progress and continuity

    NIYA noted that while Kanu’s outburst in court may have posed challenges for his legal team, they should not be used as grounds for ignoring political solution to the matter. 

    While acknowledging Kanu’s outburst in court, the group insisted such behaviour which stem from frustration should not be used as grounds to deny a political solution. 

    “On this note, our candid advice goes to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, only you can solve this. We recommend that you invoke the provisions of section 174 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and let Mazi Nnamdi Kanu go. Show yourself to be a true hero of fairness!, show yourself to be a true protector of our fragile democracy!, lead the way like “Prophet Moses(Musa) of the holy books” who led captives into freedom. Free Mazi Nnamdi Kanu !.

    “We must keep preaching unity, we must keep preaching democracy, we must also keep fighting for true practice of equality under the law. Nigeria must succeed,” it added.

  • JUST IN: Court convicts Kanu on two counts of engaging in terrorism act

    JUST IN: Court convicts Kanu on two counts of engaging in terrorism act

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted Nnamdi Kanu of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on the offence of engaging in act of terrorism.

    Justice James Omotosho, in his ongoing judgment in Kanu’s terrorism trial, found him guilty in relation to counts one and two of the seven-count charge being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS). 

    Justice Omotosho held that the threats of violence and killings, including the declaration of sit at home in the South East states, in his many broadcasts constitute acts of terrorism.

    The judge has now moved to count three.

    Details shortly…

  • Kanu asks Appeal Court to quash dismissal of his no-case submission

    Kanu asks Appeal Court to quash dismissal of his no-case submission

    Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to stop the Federal High Court from delivering judgment in his ongoing terrorism trial.

    Justice James Omotosho, the trial judge in the terrorism case, had on November 7 fixed judgment for November 20.

    Kanu’s request is contained in a fresh motion on notice he personally filed, having sacked his legal team of very senior lawyers.

    He is praying the Court of Appeal to stop the High Court from further proceeding with the charges against him.

    His new motion was predicated on the ground that he had filed a notice of appeal against the September 26 ruling of Justice Omotosho, which dismissed his no case submission and ordered him to defend the terrorism allegations against him.

    Kanu is contending that the Federal High Court was wrong in dismissing his no-case submission without going through the jurisdictional and validity of the charges he raised.

    He argued that the lower court was wrong in upholding the charges because the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed, and therefore, there were no valid charges against him.

    He also held that the Constitutional issue of jurisdiction was not addressed by the judge in the considered ruling on the no-case submission.

    The ground of the motion was that Justice Omotosho did not evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the cross-examination to determine whether the adduced evidence had been discredited.

    Kanu added: “That he sought to call 23 witnesses only when the issue of jurisdiction had been determined, but which the court refused to do and stated that such would be done in the final judgment.

    “That the judge foreclosed his right to defend himself from the charges while refusing to rule on his objections to the validity of some of the counts in the charges.”

    Kanu said that if his request to stop the judgment delivery was not granted by the Court of Appeal, he may be unlawfully convicted and sentenced to jail.

    Read Also: BREAKING: Court fixes November 20 for judgment in Kanu’s terrorism trial

    Besides, he feared that if the November 20 judgment is delivered, his appeal against the no-case submission would become academic, and a fait accompli would therefore be foisted on the Court of Appeal.

    The Biafra nation agitator submitted that neither he nor the Federal High Court would be prejudiced if the application is granted.

    In a 13-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion, Kanu raised the issue of disobedience to the Supreme Court order on the validity of count 7 of the charges against him and the failure to apply the mandatory test under Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 ACJA.

  • BREAKING: Court fixes November 20 for judgment in Kanu’s terrorism trial

    BREAKING: Court fixes November 20 for judgment in Kanu’s terrorism trial

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled judgment for November 20 in the terrorism trial of the detained leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

    Justice James Omotosho chose the date on Friday while ruling after Kanu failed to open his defence having exhausted the six days allocated to him by the court to conduct his defence.

    Read Also: BREAKING: Kanu bows to court order, begins defence in terrorism trial

    The judge said Kanu, having failed to utilise the opportunity granted him to conduct his defence, he cannot claim to have been denied the constitutionally guaranteed rights to fair hearing.

    Details shortly…

  • UPDATED: Court orders Kanu to enter defence or deemed to waive right to

    UPDATED: Court orders Kanu to enter defence or deemed to waive right to

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has  ordered the detained self acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu to enter a defence in his ongoing terrorism trial or be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

    Justice James Omotosho issued the order on Tuesday after Kanu failed, for the fourth day, to enter his defence after the prosecution closed its case and the court overruled his no-case submission.

    The judge said should Kanu fail to open his defence on November 5, he would be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

    The court had, on October 27 adjourned till November 4 for Kanu to either file his final written address or open his defence.

    At the resumption of proceedings on Tuesday, Justice Omotosho gave a brief history of the case so far and said the business of the day was for Kanu to either open his defence or adopt his final written address.

    Kanu, who is conducting his case by himself, said he has not filled any final written address as ordered by the court, but filed a motion and a supporting affidavit.

    Kanu said he would not enter any defence because he was convinced that there is no valid charge, known to any extant law in the country, that is pending against him.

    He said: “I believe there are a few misconceptions here. There is no valid charge against me,” and proceeded to read from a judgment of the Supreme Court, which he claimed said Section 47 of the Criminal Code Act (CCA) does not exist.

    Kanu also argued that the Terrorist Prevention Act 2013 under which he is being tried, has been repealed and accused the court of failing to take judicial notice of his claim that the law has been repealed.

    He said: “The fact that this court has refused to take judicial notice of a repealed law vitiates this trial.

    “My lord , you failed to take judicial notice of the fact that the law under which I am being tried is repealed. 

    “Why are you asking me to enter defence when there is no law under which I am being tried.

    “I cannot no go back to custody unless this court tells me under what law that I have been charged,” he said.

    He threatened not to return to detention and demanded that he should be set free and allowed to go home immediately because, according to him, there is no valid charge in respect of which he should be further subjected to trial.

    Kanu cited Section 36 (12) of the Constitution, in support of his argument that he could not be subjected to trial under a law that is not in existence.

    Justice Omotosho later asked him to read out the section of the Constitution to the hearing of the court, which he did, following which the judge took time to explain the provision to the defendant 

    The judge told him that the provision of Section 36(12) of the Constitution was not applicable at the current stage of the case.

    Justice Omotosho said: “We have not got to that stage. It is when you have entered your defence or rest your case on the prosecution’s case that, at the judgment stage, it would be determined whether or not you can be convicted.

    The judge added that it was not yet the stage where the court could determine whether or not the offence for which the defendant is being tried is known to law, adding that the issue of conviction, which Section 36 (12) relates to, could only be determined at the conclusion of the case.

    Read Also: Kanu dumps plan to enter defence, asks court to free him

    Justice Omotosho said he had earlier made pronouncement on the consequence of a repealed law while ruling on the no-case submission earlier made by Kanu.

    The judge noted that is the same  Supreme Court, whose judgment Kanu quoted from to support his claim that his trial was unlawful, that sent the case  back to the Federal High Court for the defendant to be tried on the remaining seven counts.

    He added that if the Supreme Court did not see the need for the defendant to be subjected to trial, it would not have sent the case back for trial.

    Kanu, who remained adamant on his position that he would not enter his defence, said: “this is constructive denial of fair hearing. You cannot send me back to detention without telling me under which law I am being tried.”

    He later informed the court that he filed a motion and an affidavit, which he said raised threshold issues about the court’s jurisdiction to continue to hear the case.

    Responding, prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) faulted the competence of the fresh court documents filed by Kanu, arguing that they were not properly filed.

    Awomolo said although he considered the documents incompetent, he has filed a response to it.

    He urged the court to desist from further indulging the defendant, who he claimed, was only interested in wasting the court’s time.

    Awomolo prayed the court to deem the documents filed by Kanu as his final written address, direct parties to adopt their final addresses and adjourn for judgment.

    Before ruling, Justice turned to Kanu, who sat in the dock, and said: “Just like I did the other time, I appeal to you, in the name of Almighty God to get a legal expert that can put you through.

    “When I said lawyer, it is not just a lawyer, but one that is conversant with criminal proceedings. In the name of Almighty God, you need to get a lawyer to put you through.

    “The law has given you the opportunity to put in your defence. If you say you are not calling witnesses, the court cannot force you.”

    “My dear brother, I appeal to you in the name of Almighty God to get a lawyer, who is an expert in criminal law to put you through,”

    Ruling, Justice Omotosho said the  documents filed by Kanu were in order and would be considered at the time of judgment.

    He said all preliminary objections will be taken at the final written address stage.

    The judge added that, having taken judicial notice that the defendant is not a lawyer, he should be given opportunity to consult a lawyer and get necessary support.

    Justice Omotosho then adjourn till November 5 for the defendant to either enter his defence or be deemed to have waived his right to do so 

  • BREAKING: Court threatens to foreclose Kanu should he fail to enter defence

    BREAKING: Court threatens to foreclose Kanu should he fail to enter defence

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has threatened to foreclose the detained self acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, should he fail to enter a defence in his ongoing terrorism trial.

    Justice James Omotosho issued the threat on Tuesday after Kanu failed, for the fourth day, to enter his defence after the prosecution closed its case and the court overruled his no-case submission.

    Justice Omotosho said should Kanu fail to open his defence on November 5, he would be deemed to have waived his right to so do.

    The court had, on October 27 adjourned till November 4 for Kanu to either file his final written address or open his defence.

    At the resumption of proceedings on Tuesday, Kanu, who is conducting his case by himself, said he has not filled any final written address as ordered by the court, but filed a motion and a supporting affidavit.

    Kanu said he would not enter any defence because he was convinced that there is no valid charge, known to any extant law, that is pending against him.

    He threatened not to return to detention and demanded that he should be set free and allowed to go home immediately because, according to him, there is no valid charge in respect of which he should be further subjected to trial.

    Responding, prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) faulted the competence of the fresh court documents filed by Kanu, arguing that they were not properly filed.

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu

    Awomolo urged the court to desist from further indulging the defendant, who he claimed was only interested in wasting the court’s time.

    He urged the court to deem the documents recently filed by Kanu as his final written address, order parties to adopt the final addresses and adjourn for judgment.

    Ruling, Justice Omotosho said the  documents recently filed by Kanu were in order and would be considered at the time of judgment.

    The judge said having taken judicial notice that the defendant is not a lawyer, he should be given opportunity to consult a lawyer and get necessary support.

    Justice Omotosho proceeded to adjourn till November 5 for the defendant to either enter his defence or deemed to have waived his right to so do.

  • What does Kanu want?

    What does Kanu want?

    Nnamdi Kanu is at it again. For the umpteenth time, he pulled another stunt in court on Monday when his treason trial resumed. He was expected to open his defence so that the case can get on the home stretch. He was given between October 23 and today to do so. He wasted the one week grace without doing the needful. He kept on giving excuses whenever the case came up.

    First, it was the sacking of his lawyers. The second was that he did not have the case files as his lawyers went away with them after their sack. The third was that he believed that the court could not try him as there was no valid charge against him. He then requested that he be freed or be given one week to file a written address. Kanu may adopt whatever delay tactic catches his fancy. He will bear the brunt as he is the one in custody. But should he be allowed to dictate1to the court? The answer is NO!

    Read Also:

    How can he come back now and say there is no ‘valid charge’ against him after the court dismissed his ‘no-case submission’ last month; asked him to open his defence and gave him between October 23 and 30 to do so? The court has bent backward enough to accommodate Kanu, but he keeps abusing the privilege. I pity him! Whether he and his ilk like it or not, his trial must go on and justice will take its course. It is just a matter of time. Let them take to the streets from now till thy kingdom comes, it will change nothing, and  heavens will not fall.

    Since he has decided to become an emergency lawyer, Kanu should know the next step to take after the Federal High Court concludes the case. The law is no respecter of persons, but of those who respect the law. As the court ciunselled him: “this is not economics; this is a criminal prosecution”. A word, they say, is enough for the wise.

  • UPDATED: Kanu dumps plan to enter defence, claims no case against him

    UPDATED: Kanu dumps plan to enter defence, claims no case against him

    The detained self acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has abandoned his earlier plan to call witnesses in his defence in his ongoing trial for alleged terrorism offences.

    Kanu told a Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday that he has realised that there was no valid charge against him and that evidence led so far have not established any case against him to require the he enter a defence.

    The court had on October 24 adjourned till October 27 for Kanu to open his defence. Kanu had written the court, indicating his intention to call witnesses and applied for witness summons.

    Believing that Kanu would open his defence on Monday, the court reserved about five seats, with each labelled “summoned witness.”

    When the case was called Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) announced appearance, along with some other lawyers, for the prosecution.

    Kanu also announced his name and said he was representing himself, following which Awomolo reminded the court that the business of the day was for the defendant to open his defence.

    Responding, Kanu, who earlier sat in the dock, stood up and said he had gone through the case files and found that “there is actually no charge against me.”

    Kanu argued that there is no extant law in the country on which the prosecution could premise its case, adding: “There is no case against me. If there is no case against me, it will be futile for me to enter any defence.”

    At that point Justice James Omotosho intervened and took time to explain to the defendant that in a criminal trial, the defendant only has three options after the prosecution has closed its case.

    Justice Omotosho said the first option was for the defendant to make a no-case submission and when overruled, the defendant is then required to enter a defence.

    He said where a defendant chose not to open his/her defence or conduct any defence at all, such a defendant can decide to rest on the prosecution’s case, and then file a written address, to which the prosecution will be required to reply and the court delivers judgment.

    After listening to the judge’s explanation, Kanu said: “my position is that there is no charge against me. There is no need for me to enter a defence. What I’m saying is that there is no case against me.”

    The judge then reminded him that he had earlier ruled on Kanu’s no-case submission and held that he has a case to answer. The judge said that ruling still subsists.

    Kanu then applied to the court for a week adjournment to enable him file a written address to support why he insisted that no valid charge was pending against him, arguing that he was subjective to needless trial and determination.

    He said: “I need a week to file a written address to the effect that there is no charge against me. If there is no extant law in Nigeria on which the charge could stand, there cannot be a case. You must pleas release me today or grant bail.”

    Responding, Awomolo said from what the defendant has said and the option he has taken, the court should adjourn for judgment.

    Awomolo said: “I take it that the defendant said he is not putting in any defence, because there is no valid charge against him.

    “I want to submit that this position is conclusive of the defendant’s defence. I know that he took a plea to counts against him and he pleaded not guilty.

    We led evidence and he cross-examined our witnesses.

    “Now that he said he has no defence, the case has been brought to a close,” Awomolo said and urged the court to adjourn for judgment right away.

    Awomolo noted that at this stage, there is only one option for the defendant, adding that if he (Kanu) takes his objection as his defence, the prosecution will respond and the court will give its judgment subsequently.

    The prosecuting lawyer said the option chosen by Kanu implies that he has opted to address the court on pont of law as his defence in the case.

    In his intervention, Justice Omotosho noted that the defendant is not outrightly saying he has no defence, but that the charge against me cannot be. 

    He added: “That is also a defence. In that case, he will have to put that down in a written submission that will be served on the prosecution, who will also respond.”

    Read Also: BREAKING: Kanu dumps plan to enter defence, insists no case against him

    The judge then proceeded to advise Kanu to consult experts before he decides on how to proceed henceforth.

    Justice Omotosho said: “There is need for you (Kanu) to consultant people, who are knowledgeable in criminal prosecution to advise you on how to proceed.

    “I am begin you in the name of God Almighty, to consult properly. I am inclined to grant you the adjournment you seek. 

    I am inclined to give him the opportunity to consult those, who are knowledgeable in criminal law. 

    “I know you are educated, but are not a lawyer, you need to consult experts in the field. Please make adequate consultation. This is not economics. This is criminal prosecution. 

    “Please, my brother, make adequate consultation. Criminal cases are not like every other cases. I took the opportunity to explain to the defendant because he is not a lawyer,” he said.

    The judge added that he  has a duty to explain to the defendant  the consequences of his decision not to enter a defence.

    Justice Omotosho said after Kanu sacked his lawyers, he had wanted to refer the case to  the Legal Aid Council or any lawyer, who was willing to take the case pro bono, but the defendant  refused and said he was going to defend himself.

    “Even at that, I still have a duty to explain the consequences of his option to him because he is not a lawyer. Please, make consultation,” the judge said.

    The judge then gave Kanu four days from Monday within which he should file his written address and serve on the prosecution to enable the prosecution file it’s reply.

    He adjourned till November 4, 5 and 6 for either the adoption of the written addresses or for Kanu to open his defence should he chose to change his mind.