The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nnamdi Kanu

  • I was deceived into pleading to false charge, says Kanu

    I was deceived into pleading to false charge, says Kanu

    • IPOB leader gets last chance to enter defence

    Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu yesterday told the court that he was misguided to enter a plea into a charge that does not exist.

    Still declining to enter his defence, Justice James Omotosho gave him a last opportunity to do so today or wave his right.

    Federal High Court, Abuja  judge said it was his duty as a judge in the case to guide the defendant, who is not a lawyer, and to accord him sufficient opportunity to put in his defence.

    “We had adjourned till today (November 5) for the defendant to put in his defence or be deemed closed. But, I am bound to give him another opportunity to put in his defence.  If he did not, I will deem him closed.

    “I know that he is an Economist and not a lawyer. I will give the last opportunity to the defendant to put in his defence, failing which he would be deemed closed.”

    Justice Omotosho ordered that the Department of State Services (DSS) give the defendant access to his consultants, who were his counsel before, but now consultants, to consult with him to enable him prepare for his defence, which he is to open on November 7 (tomorrow).

    READ ALSO: Few notable things about Olumo rock

    The judge spoke while ruling on an application by the prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) that the court should foreclose Kanu, who failed to enter his defence, having spent five  of the six days the court allocated to him to conduct his defence.

    Earlier at the commencement of proceedings, the judge noted that the case was adjourned till yesterday “for two reasons: Whether the defendant wants to have a rethink and get a counsel or that he should enter his defence.”

    The judge then turned to Kanu, who sat in the dock, and demanded that he should proceed with his defence.

    Kanu rose to his feet, told the court that he has some things to say that could embarrass the nation’s Judiciary.

    He then, requested that the judge should allow him and Awomolo to meet with him in his chambers (the judge’s) for him to say what he claimed could embarrass the Judiciary.

    The judge declined Kanu’s request and insisted that he should say all that he wanted to say in the open court for all to hear.

    On three occasions, the judge asked Kanu if what he planned to say was about any allegations of wrongdoing against his person, to which the defendant answered in the negative, saying he has nothing against the judge.

    Kanu later told the court that he intended to file some documents and wanted opportunity to meet with his consultants, whom he said were present in court.

    When the judge asked the said consultants to identify themselves, they turned out to be some members of the defendant’s legal team, led by Kanu Agabi (SAN), which he sacked on October 23, the day he was initially scheduled to open his defence.

    The lawyers are P. A. N Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Maxwell Opara and Mandela Umegburu. Ejimakor even told the court that he prepared some documents for the defendant.

    In response to the judge’s directive that he should speak in the open court, Kanu later brought out a document from which he read some arguments, faulting the charge against him.

    He argued that the charge was invalid because, according to him, it was based on repealed laws that are no longer in existence.

    Kanu said: “I am being asked to enter defence. I will, but I must know the law under which I am being tried to enable me prepare my defence.”

    He claimed that the prosecution was in breach of the directive of the Supreme Court for allegedly failing to amend the charge.

    Kanu said he has not refused to enter a defence, but demand that he be shown the law under which he is being prosecuted.

    He said since he was challenging the court’s jurisdiction, his  right to fair hearing was sancrosant and must be respected. He claimed to have been fooled into pleading to the charge, which he insisted, is invalid.

    Kanu said: “I was deceived into pleading to a charge  that does not exist, which is a direct violation of  my right to fair hearing.”

    When asked by the judge who deceived him, Kanu said: “The prosecution deceived me by filing a charge under laws that do not exist. I was duped and deceived into pleading to a charge that does not exist,” he said.

    Kanu then thanked the judge for granting him the indulgence to speak.

    Responding, Awomolo noted that the court, on Tuesday, adjourned till Wednesday for Kanu to enter a defence in his trial or be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

    He  noted that at the resumption of proceedings on Tuesday, Kanu still declined to open his defence as ordered by the court, conduct which Awomolo said amounted to a disobedience to an order of the court.

    Awomolo urged the court to take note of the defendant’s position that he would not enter any defence because there is no valid charge against him.

    He then prayed the court to foreclose the defendant and adjourn for judgment.

    In his intervention, Justice Omotosho restated his advice to Kanu to consult an expert in criminal law to assist him in his defence.

    The judge said: “A lot of people are out there and you think they are experts in criminal procedure, they are not. It is not an area of law that people without experience can dabble into.

    “Before man and God, I am here to give proper advice. I am not saying you are not entitled to take a position. To guide you properly, keep your gun powder dry. Keep your gun powder dry.

    “I am not saying that you should not say anything that you feel you have against the court. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the issue you raised about repealed laws should be raised at the final address stage,” Justice Omotosho said.

    Meanwhile, following complaint by Awomolo, Justice Omotosho cautioned Kanu’s four  consultants to conduct themselves within the ethics of the legal profession.

    Awomolo had accused the lawyers of granting media interviews and making subtle posts on social media in relation to the case.

  • UPDATED: Court gives Nnamdi Kanu final opportunity to enter defence or be foreclosed

    UPDATED: Court gives Nnamdi Kanu final opportunity to enter defence or be foreclosed

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the last opportunity to the detained self-acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu to either enter a defence in his ongoing terrorism trial or be foreclosed.

    Justice James Omotosho said on Wednesday that it was his duty as a judge in the case to guide the defendant, who is not a lawyer, and to accord him sufficient opportunity to put in his defence.

    “We had adjourned till today (November 5) for the defendant to put in his defence or be deemed closed. But, I am bound to give him another opportunity to put in his defence.  If he did not, I will deem him closed. 

    “I know that he is an Economist and not a lawyer. I will give the last opportunity to the defendant to put in his defence, failing which he would be deemed closed.” 

    Justice Omotosho ordered that the Department of State Services (DSS) give the defendant access to his consultants, who were his counsel before, but now consultants, to consult with him to enable him prepare for his defence, which he is to open on November 7.

    The judge spoke while ruling on an application by the prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) that the court should foreclose Kanu, who failed to enter his defence, having spent five out of the six days the court allocated to him to conduct his defence.

    At the commencement of proceedings, the judge noted that 

    the case was adjourned till November 5 “for two things: Whether the defendant wants to have a rethink and get a counsel or that he should enter his defence.”

    The judge then turned to Kanu, who sat in the dock, and demanded that he should proceed with his defence.

    Kanu rose to his feet, told the court that he has some things to say that could embarrass the nation’s Judiciary.

    He then, requested that the judge should allow him and Awomolo to meet with him in his chambers (the judge’s) for him to say what he claimed could embarrass the Judiciary.

    The judge declined Kanu’s request and insisted that he should say all that he wants to say in the open court for all to hear.

    On three occasions, the judge asked Kanu if what he planned to say was about any allegations of wrongdoing against his person, to which the defendant answered in the negative, saying he has nothing against the judge.

    Kanu later told the court that he intends to file some documents and wanted opportunity to meet with his consultants, whom he said were present in court.

    When the judge asked the said consultants to identify themselves, they turned out to be some members of the defendant’s legal team, led by Kanu Agabi (SAN), which he sacked on October 23, the day he was initially scheduled to open his defence.

    The lawyers are P. A. N Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Maxwell Opara and Mandela Umegburu. Ejimakor even told the court that he prepared some documents for the defendant.

    In response to the judge’s directive that he should speak in the open court, Kanu later brought out a document from which he read some arguments, faulting the charge against him.

    He argued that the charge was invalid because, according to him, it was based on repealed laws that are no longer in existence.

    Kanu said: “I am being asked to enter defence. I will but I must know the law under which I am being tried to enable me prepare my defence.”

    He claimed that the prosecution was in breach of the directive of the Supreme Court for allegedly failing to amend the charge.

    Kanu said he has not refused to enter a defence but demanded that he be shown the law under which he is being prosecuted.

    He said since he was challenging the court’s jurisdiction, his right to fair hearing was sancrosant and must be respected. He claimed to have been fooled into pleading to the charge, which he insisted, is invalid.

    Kanu said: “I was deceived into pleading to a charge that does not exist, which is a direct violation of  my right to fair hearing.”

    When asked by the judge who deceived him, Kanu said: “The prosecution deceived me by filing a charge under laws that do not exist. I was duped and deceived into pleading to a charge that does not exist.”

    Kanu then thanked the judge for granting him the indulgence to speak.

    Responding, Awomolo noted that the court, on Tuesday, adjourned till Wednesday for Kanu to enter a defence in his trial or be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu

    He further noted that at the resumption of proceedings on November 5, Kanu still declined to open his defence as ordered by the court, conduct which Awomolo said amounted to a disobedience to an order of the court.

    Awomolo urged the court to take note of the defendant’s position that he would not enter any defence because there is no valid charge against him.

    He then prayed the court to foreclose the defendant and adjourn for judgment.

    In his intervention, Justice Omotosho restated his advice to Kanu to consult an expert in criminal law to assist him in his defence.

    The judge said: “A lot of people are out there and you think they are experts in criminal procedure, they are not. It is not an area of law that people without experience can dabble into. 

    “Before man and God, I am here to give proper advice. I am not saying you are not entitled to take a position. To guide you properly, keep your gun powder dry. Keep your gun powder dry.

    “I am not saying that you should not say anything that you feel you have against the court. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the issue you raised about repealed laws should be raised at the final address stage,” Justice Omotosho said.

    Following a complaint by Awomolo, Justice Omotosho cautioned Kanu’s four consultants to conduct themselves within the ethics of the legal profession.

    Awomolo had accused the lawyers of granting media interviews and making subtle posts on social media in relation to the case.

  • JUST IN: Court gives Nnamdi Kanu last chance to enter defence or forfeit same

    JUST IN: Court gives Nnamdi Kanu last chance to enter defence or forfeit same

    *Cautions his ex-lawyers to be ethical 

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the last opportunity to the detained self acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu to either enter a defence in his ongoing terrorism trial or be foreclosed.

    Justice James Omotosho said on Wednesday that it was his duty as a judge in the case to accord the defendant sufficient opportunity to put in his defence.

    “We had adjourned till today for the defendant to put in his defence or be deemed closed. But, I am bound to give him another opportunity to put in his defence. 

    “If he did not, I will deem him closed. I know that he is an Economist and not a lawyer. I will give the last opportunity to the defendant to put in his defence, failure which he would be deemed closed,” the judge said and adjourned till November 7.

    Read Also: Judge gives Nnamdi Kanu 7 days to file written address

    The judge spoke while ruling on an application by the prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) that the court should foreclose Kanu, who failed to enter his defence having spent five out of the six days the court allocated to him to conduct his defence.

    Awomolo had noted that the court had on Tuesday, adjourned till Wednesday for Kanu to enter a defence in his trial or be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

    He further noted that at the resumption of proceedings on Wednesday, Kanu still declined to open his defence as ordered by the court.

    Awomolo urged the court to take note of the defendant’s position that he would not enter any defence because there is no valid charge against him.

    He then prayed the court to foreclose the defendant and adjourn for judgment.

    Earlier, Kanu, who represented himself, addressed the court from the dock. He maintained his position that there is no valid charge against him to warrant his being called to enter a defence.

    Meanwhile, following complaint by Awomolo, Justice Omotosho cautioned Kanu’s former lawyers in the case, who now refer to themselves as his consultants, to conduct themselves within the ethics of the legal profession.

    The lawyers are: P. A. N Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Dr. Maxwell Opara and Prince Mandela Umegburu.

    Awomolo had accused the lawyers of granting media interviews and making subtle posts on social media in relation to the case.

    The lawyers, who Kanu also confirmed as his consultants, were in court to witness Wednesday’s proceedings and introduced themselves as such as well.

    Details shortly…

  • Judge orders Kanu to file defence today or be deemed to have waived right

    Judge orders Kanu to file defence today or be deemed to have waived right

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has  ordered the detained 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 yesterday 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 (today), he would be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

    The court 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 yesterday, 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 had not filled any final written address as ordered by the court, but filed a motion and a supporting affidavit.

    READ ALSO: No religious persecution in Nigeria, Tuggar insists

    Kanu said he would not enter any defence because he was convinced that there is any 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.

    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.

    Replying, 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 Omotosho  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 today for the defendant to either enter his defence or be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

  • Nnamdi Kanu

    Nnamdi Kanu

    • Architect of own (mis)fortune

    On October 20, protests for the unilateral release of detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra, (IPOB), Mr Nnamdi Kanu, took place in parts of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja; Lagos, and a few other locations in the country. Organised by human rights activist and publisher, Mr Omoyele Sowore, the action was predicated on what was described as the ‘delayed trial’ of the pro-Biafra separatist agitator, thus creating the insinuation that the government was manipulating a protracted and unending judicial process to keep Kanu out of circulation in perpetuity.

    It has also been alleged that the IPOB leader had since been cleared of all charges by a Court of Appeal and that the Federal Government had failed to obey the judicial order that he be released.

    There were also those who anchored their calls for Kanu’s release on the prerogative of mercy recently exercised by President Bola Tinubu in favour of a number of convicted persons who were granted pardon for an assortment of reasons, arguing that the same gesture be extended to Kanu.

    True, Kanu’s trial has been ongoing since 2021 when he was forcibly repatriated back to the country and ordinarily ought to have proceeded further than it has four years after. But the truth, which Sowore and his fellow protesters seek to obscure is that Kanu has largely been the architect of the snail’s speed at which his trial has progressed.

    It is pertinent to note that Kanu was first arrested in October 2015 and charged before a magistrate’s court in November of the same year for alleged acts of terrorism and treason. Although his release was ordered by a Federal High Court in December 2015, the Federal Government brought fresh charges of treasonable felony against him, necessitating the continuation of his trial.

    Nevertheless, he was granted bail in April 2017 by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with the conditions that he should not grant press interviews or address gatherings of people. Later that year, he jumped bail and fled the country, citing the alleged invasion of his country home in Abia State as the reason for his action.

    But even from his base abroad, Kanu continued to make incendiary radio and social media broadcasts to the country, employing insulting, derogatory and abusive language against non-Igbos and inciting his supporters to violence.

    The sit-at-home Monday protests inspired by IPOB in the Southeast was capitalised upon by rogue groups and criminal elements, leading to the loss of several lives across the region, paralysing educational institutions and leading to colossal economic losses in a region known for the commercial vibrancy of her people.

    In the same vein, his inflammatory and inciting directives from his base abroad are known to have contributed to the scale of destruction during the #EndSARS protests in 2020, with Lagos State, for example, suffering losses estimated at no less than N2 trillion and the deaths of several people, including security personnel in the state and other parts of the country.

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu: Tompolo distances self from 21-day ultimatum to FG

    However, Kanu was repatriated back to Nigeria in June 2021, his trial before Justice Nyako resumed and his bail revoked. The presiding judge expunged eight of the 15-count charge against him, asking him to defend himself against the remaining seven.

    In 2022, he was discharged by the Court of Appeal and the charges against him ordered to be dropped but this decision was overturned in 2023 by the Supreme Court which decided that he must defend himself against the seven charges for which he was arraigned.

    On this issue again, Sowore and his associates sought to mislead the public. However, Kanu’s theatrics forced Justice Nyako to recuse herself from handling the case, thus causing further waste of time as the case was reassigned to Justice James Omotosho and the trial had to begin afresh in 2024.

    It has become glaring that Kanu is unwilling to commence his defence despite the prosecution having closed its case and the court adjourning twice to enable him open his case and giving him six days to begin and conclude his defence.

    A panel of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), at the behest of the court, affirmed that Kanu was fit to undergo trial contrary to his claim of being seriously unwell. The IPOB leader had since sacked the entirety of his legal team and opted to defend himself, despite lacking any legal expertise.

    On Monday when he was supposed to open his defence by calling witnesses, Kanu declined to do so, affirming rather that the evidence so far had not established any case against him and requesting to be granted bail or released. The presiding judge has been quite liberal, perhaps indulgent, in granting him another week to file a written address to support his claim that no valid case had been established against him despite the court having earlier overruled the submission by his counsel that he had a case to answer.

    Kanu seems to seriously underestimate the gravity of the offences for which he has been charged. Those calling for the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy on his behalf are perhaps unaware that pardon can only be granted where there has been conviction and a definitive decision on his guilt or otherwise cannot be reached without a trial.

    In the same vein, it is hardly justifiable to call for a political solution of the problem when Kanu has neither demonstrated remorse nor shifted position to make compromise a possibility.

  • Kanu dumps plan to enter defence, asks court to free him

    Kanu dumps plan to enter defence, asks court to free him

    Leader of the   Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has abandoned his earlier plan to call witnesses in his ongoing trial for alleged terror offences.

    Kanu told a Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday that he had realised that there was no valid charge against him. He also said that evidence so far has not established any case against him to make him enter a defence.

    The IPOB leader consequently asked the court to either release him or grant him bail.

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

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

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

     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.”

     He argued that there was 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.”

    READ ALSO: Commanding from the front: Tinubu strengthening national security architecture

     At that point, Justice James Omotosho intervened and took time to explain to Kanu that in a criminal trial, a 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 that 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 his no-case submission and held that he had a case to answer. He told the IPOB leader that the ruling subsisted.

     Kanu then applied to the court for a week’s adjournment to enable him to file a written address to support why he insisted that no valid charge was pending against him. He argued that he was subjected to a needless trial and detention.

    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 should please release me today(yesterday or grant me  bail.”

    Responding, Awomolo said that from what the defendant 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 the 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.”

    Urging the court to adjourn for judgment, Awomolo said the option chosen by Kanu implies that he has opted to address the court on a point of law as his defence in the case.

     In his intervention, Justice Omotosho noted that the defendant was not saying outright that he has no defence, but that the charge against him cannot be sustained.

    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.”

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

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

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

    I am inclined to allow him to consult those who are knowledgeable in criminal law.

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

    “Please, my brother, make adequate consultation. Criminal cases are not like every other case. 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 that 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 said he would 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 till Friday, within which he should file his written address and serve it on the prosecution.

    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 choose to change his mind.

  • Enablers of Kanu self-destructive behaviour

    Enablers of Kanu self-destructive behaviour

    As seductive as the federal arrangement, a social  system that guarantees ‘unity in diversity’ is, it also has the prospect of producing arrogant leaders with inflated sense of self-importance as representative of groups with their own clear vision of society. By strange coincidence, all our three founding fathers suffered from this federalism’s major infirmity.

    Obafemi Awolowo was an efficient administrator and an unrepentant federalist. His unrivalled achievement in education, communication and industrialization and drive towards an egalitarian society in a world of endless class wars, placed his Western Region ahead of other regions.

    But his audacity to dream he could replicate his West achievement all over the country, a crusade not shared by his more Yoruba irredentist deputy, Chief SL Akintola, the trusted ally he effectively used to keep the colonial masters and the feudal north at bay. This marked the beginning of the fall of the West as Ahmadu Bello who could not stand Awo’s arrogance put him out of circulation after independence courtesy NPC/NCNC alliance.

    Prof Banji Akintoye recently quoted a colleague with whom he was doing a project on Nigeria as saying “the Yoruba people are very proud; whoever told the north wanted free education?”

    Nnamdi Azikiwe, Zik was admired by Lagos intelligentsia for his erudition and worshipped by Lagos Igbo urban immigrants who had for long yearned for a spokesman. They believed whatever Zik said.  But the price the Igbo nation paid for Zik’s audacity to mislead his Igbo compatriots that unitary system is best for a multi-cultural society has been coups, pogroms, civil war and a nation that has remained ungovernable since independence.

    For Ahmadu Bello, a feudal lord, loyalty was feudalism first badge of honour. He did not forgive Awo for trying to undermine his authority among those that literarily worshiped him.  He had no apology for single handedly manipulating the constitution to remove one leg of Nigeria tripod holding Nigeria together. The consequence of Ahmadu Bello’s exploitation of innermost fears of his subjects is that the north has not moved far from where it was in 1966.

    Read Also: Tuggar reaffirms Nigeria–EU strategic partnership

    However, the battle today is against Nnamdi Kanu, an egocentric leader with inflated sense of self-importance but with neither a grand worldview nor even a clear vision of where he intends to take the Igbo nation to. In fact, his display of reckless power, arrogance and erratic outbursts such as “burn down Lagos”, burn down Oyigbo and kill all the policemen” when not railing against judges and lawyers old enough to be his grandfather, have led many to doubt if indeed he had enough time to imbibe the celebrated deep Igbo culture before moving to London to start his crusade.

    But his irascible behaviours have not stopped him from having millions of worshippers.  There are the Igbo youths with sense of siege and persecution complex arising from jaundiced narrative of Nigerian history of ethnic rivalries. There are also millions of children of anger in the social media who today swear by the name of Nnamdi Kanu, the long awaited messiah who will take Igbo out of the zoo run by Fulani illiterates supported by Yoruba who recently replaced Igbo as spare tyre.

    And topping the list Kanu’s enablers are a section of the media. And their award winning journalists, a segment of Igbo political elite with reputation for playing the ostrich and a section of the noble profession who has faith in the judiciary only when they are beneficiaries.

    As for Kanus media enablers, the central focus of the two platforms Channels TV and ARISE TV used for this piece was the failure of government to successfully prosecute Kanu they claimed was kept in detention for five years; that it was within the constitutional right of Sowore and Kanu’s defence lawyer to move to the street few days to Justice Omotosho’s six days accelerated hearing of Kanu’s case.

    They argued with intent to mislead the public that the court order obtained by the police banning Sowore and his group from some sensitive areas in Abuja was inferior to the constitution. They did not see Sowore’s refusal to obey court order as invitation to anarchy; for them the arrest and arraignment of Sowore and others who broke law by the police was immoral and constitute an anti-people behaviour on the part of the police.

    “If they did not say it was sub judice when Gani Fawehinmi-led demonstration’s years ago, why is it that it is now sub judice when Kanu’s lawyer is demonstration against a case in which he was a leading counsel”  Arise TV’s Rufai Oseni bellowed.  He continued “why is it that those who only yesterday demonstrated against Jonathan are today afraid of demonstration? This is exactly why we say Nigeria is a big joke”, he concluded.

    And his colleagues ominously reminded us of the Arab Spring without telling us if the nations involved are today better off for it. They did not forget to remind Nigerian government they alleged was anti-people, of the Gen-Z uprising across the globe.  They however failed to add that the current attention-seeking Sowore and a few others disturbing the peace of Abuja did not represent resourceful Nigerian youths who as far back as 1920 first demanded from the colonial masters that Nigeria federation be modelled after that of Switzerland.

    Neither could the current social media anarchists and those who called themselves ‘obidient’ be compared with our youth who in the sixties moved around the world where they engaged in debate about how to make the world better for humanity.

    I am not aware of any these platforms that covered Sowore frees Kanu’s s protest last week that informed their audience that Kanu was the architect of his own misfortune with his periodic attack and rejection of judges, intimidation of judicial officers  and abuse of the judicial process. All we got from a more restrained Laolu Akande was “Kanu wants a political solution”.

    But the leopard hardly changes its skin. With Kanu sacking his legal team, demand for 90 days as against six days of accelerated hearing granted by Justice Omotosho, his hypocritical anti-government and anti-Nigeria media enablers now understand that we now know those behind Nigeria’s nightmare even when they daily swear in the name patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrels .

    Of course the critical enablers of Kanu are a segment of Igbo political elite. Channel TV’s Seun Okinbaloye and Charles Aniagolu last week spoke with two leading members of the group, Dan Iwuanyawu, a Labour Zenith chieftain and the other, an elected Labour Party member of the House of Representatives. 

    For Iwuanyawu, Kanu has not done anything against Nigerian state. Our problem, he insists is double standard. He tried to draw a parallel between Kanu’s IPOB and Fulani terrorist currently negotiating with government. He however failed to indicate the negotiation is at subnational level where tribal war between Fulani and their Hausa hosts which remained intractable despite thousands of deaths and over 12 years of federal government failed attempt to use force to install peace among siblings.

    And for the Labour Party National Assembly member, the ongoing trial of Kanu was a carryover of Yoruba-Igbo war. And his reason which the news anchor did not try to correct was that the current president is Yoruba, the  Attorney General and Minister of Justice is Yoruba, the presiding judge  in Kanu’s case, Justice Omotosho is Yoruba and Kanu’s prosecuting Lawyers are Yoruba. Therefore, Kanu’s case which preceded Tinubu’s government by about seven years is a Yoruba war against Igbo!

    These Igbo leaders unfortunately live in denial claiming periodic mindless killing of policemen and innocent Igbos arising from Kanu and his recently jailed Finland based deputy, Simon Ekpa’s ‘sit at home order’ were sponsored from outside. But we have Governor Chukwuma Soludo of Anambra who recently disclosed to the world that “99.9% of those caught and indicted for mindless killing of Igbos, are Igbos”.

    From the outburst of some of Kanu’s defence lawyers who in the past openly spoke of persecution, it is not difficult to know from where Kanu derived his audacity and reckless bravery. These senior experienced lawyers hardly disagree with Kanu. Many have therefore argued that it may also not be difficult for them to also don the ethnic toga when Kanu insists what was going on was a persecution and not prosecution.

    Journalists as politicians pretending to be advocates of the people should be reminded that the primary role of the Fourth Estate of the Realm besides keeping government under watch is supporting all our institutions since the alternative is anarchy. The only reason there are journalists is because we have this “our own dear native land, where tribe and tongue may differ, but in brotherhood we stand” and an imperfect government trying to balance the interest of the people and that of the owners of society.

  • Judge gives Nnamdi Kanu 7 days to file written address

    Judge gives Nnamdi Kanu 7 days to file written address

    Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, gave Nnamdi Kanu seven days to file his final written address in the ongoing trial on alleged terrorism offences.

    Justice Omotosho granted Kanu’s request for a week to file his final written address following his decision not to open his defence after his no-case submission was refused.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), had earlier sought to call no fewer than 23 witnesses in his defence against the ongoing alleged terrorism offences.

    Kanu, in a motion filed on Oct. 21, listed the names of prominent Nigerians and foreigners he intended to call as witnesses to defend himself.

    Kanu, in the application he personally signed, informed the court of his plan to call witnesses who were divided into two categories.

    The first category, he said, would be those he called “ordinary but material witnesses.”

    He further informed the court that his second category of witnesses would be “vital and compellable” and shall be “summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.”

    He prayed the court that, in view of the number of witnesses he intended to call, the court should consider granting a 90-day timeframe to enable him conclude his defence.

    The leader of the IPOB, however, disengaged his legal team led by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice on Thursday.

    He told the court he was ready to defend himself and the judge adjourned until Friday.

    But his commencement of defence could not proceed on Friday, following his complaint that the case file was yet to be handed over to him by his former lawyers and the judge fixed today for the case.

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

    When the case was called Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, announced appearance for the prosecution.

    Kanu also announced his name and said he was representing himself.

    Awomolo then told the the court that the matter was scheduled 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.

    “There is no case against me. If there is no case against me, it will be futile for me to enter any defence,” he said.

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

    The judge 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 or her defence or conduct any defence at all, such a defendant can decide to rest on the prosecution’s case.

    He said the defendant can 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.”

    Justice Omotosho reminded Kanu that he had earlier ruled on his no-case submission and held that he had a case to answer.

    According to the judge, 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.

    He argued that he was subjected to needless trial and detention.

    “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 please release me today or grant bail,” he said.

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

    “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,” the senior lawyer said.

    Awomolo, therefore, urged the court to adjourn for judgment right away.

    He said that at this stage, there was only one option for the defendant.

    According to him, 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 implied that he had opted to address the court on points of law as his defence in the case.

    In his intervention, Justice Omotosho observed that the defendant was not outrightly saying he had no defence, but that the charge against him cannot be.

    “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,” the judge said.

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

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu: Tompolo distances self from 21-day ultimatum to FG

    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 begging 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 you 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 had 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.

    Justice Omotosho 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 its reply.

    The judge adjourned the matter until Nov. 4, Nov. 5 and Nov. 6 for either the adoption of the written addresses or for Kanu to open his defence should he chose to change his mind.

    (NAN)

  • PBAT group flays reports linking Tompolo to ultimatum to release Kanu

    PBAT group flays reports linking Tompolo to ultimatum to release Kanu

    The leadership of the PBAT Door To Door Movement (PDDM) has condemned what it described as false and malicious report claiming that its Grand Patron, High Chief Government Ekpemupolo alias Tompolo, issued a 21-day ultimatum to the Federal Government to release Nnamdi Kanu.

    A statement on Sunday by the National Coordinator, PDDM, Sunday Asuku, said: “This claim is entirely baseless and the handiwork of desperate propagandists, fake news merchants, fifth columnists, and agents of disunity”.

    Asuku said that the fake news merchants’ plot to create tensions and instigate the Federal Government against Tompolo had collapsed like a pack of cards in the face of his exemplary commitment to national peace and development.

    He said it was clear that persons behind the 21-day ultimatum claim had been unsettled by Tompolo’s unalloyed support to President Bola Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

    Asuku urged security agencies to investigate and bring to book those behind the fake news.

    He said: “These elements are bent on creating tension and undermining the patriotic efforts of a man who has remained an icon of peace, unity, national development, socio-economic and political diversity, regardless of tribal, religion, zonal or political affiliation.

    “It is evident that Chief Tompolo’s unwavering support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda has unsettled certain groups uncomfortable with his growing influence in advancing national stability and economic progress. However, their attempt to malign his image through fabricated narratives will fail.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, at no time did Chief Tompolo issue any statement or directive regarding the legal proceedings involving Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The matter is before a competent court of law, and any attempt to interfere with due process would be both unpatriotic and unlawful.

    “The PBAT Door To Door Movement wishes to emphasize that issues bordering on national unity and security must be treated with utmost responsibility and sensitivity.

    “The reckless use of social media to circulate divisive propaganda not only undermines the integrity of public discourse but also poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s collective peace and development”.

    Asuku added: “We therefore call on opinion leaders, influencers, and citizens alike to exercise restraint, promote factual reporting, and support the government’s ongoing efforts to build a stable and inclusive nation.

    Read Also: Drew Uyi honoured at Nigeria France Sports Awards 2025 in Paris

    “Chief Tompolo has consistently demonstrated commitment to the peace and stability of Nigeria, particularly in the Niger Delta region where his efforts have helped sustain the nation’s economic lifeline. As a patriot and peace advocate, his focus remains on consolidating the gains of the Renewed Hope Agenda and strengthening the bond of unity among Nigerians irrespective of ethnic or religious differences, which is obviously not going down well with the rebels.

    “Chief Tompolo’s promotion of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu Renewed Hope Agenda and his recent trend has made the enemies of Nigeria uncomfortable, hence, the propaganda and malicious publications, aimed at denting his harmonious relationship with the government.

    “We therefore call on the Department of State Services (DSS) and other relevant security agencies to thoroughly investigate and bring to book those behind this reckless act. The deliberate spread of misinformation poses a grave threat to Nigeria’s unity and security, and such actions must not be allowed to go unpunished.

    “The PBAT Door To Door Movement remains steadfast in its commitment to promoting peace, good governance, and national cohesion through truthful communication and civic engagement. We urge Nigerians to disregard the false report and always verify information before sharing it online.”

  • Nnamdi Kanu: Tompolo distances self from 21-day ultimatum to FG

    Nnamdi Kanu: Tompolo distances self from 21-day ultimatum to FG

    Chairman of Tantita Security Services Nigeria Limited, High Chief Government Ekpemupolo a.k.a Tompolo, has distanced himself from a 21-day ultimatum to the Federal Government for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)

    Tompolo, in a statement by his Media Consultant, Dr Paul Bebenimibo, denied authoring the said publication which is currently trending on social media.

    He described the development as the handiwork of his traducers determined to disrupt his efforts against crude oil theft in the Niger Delta.

    Reassuring of his support to the President Bola Tinubu-led Federal Government, he stressed that his endorsement for the president’s second bid remained firm.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s capital gains tax reform: between fairness and investment deterrence

    The statement reads: “The attention of High Chief Government Oweizide Ekpemupolo, alias Tompolo, the Ibe-Ebidouwei of Ijaw Nation and Chairman of Tantita Security Services Nigeria Limited has been drawn to the above subject matter, which is trending in some social media platforms. 

    “We wish to state unequivocally and unambiguously that, Tompolo did not author the said publication. High Chief Ekpemupolo has nothing to do with the issue of Nnamdi Kanu. It is clearly the hand work of Tompolo’s enemies, who are out there to discredit and pull him down because of his stand against illegal crude oil activities in the Niger Delta region. 

    “These set of people has failed and will continue to fail because he will not relent in carrying out his duty to totally eradicate illegal oil activities in the region. 

    “We wish to reassure the Federal Government, led by our dynamic President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, that Tompolo is with him and will continue to support the renewed agenda of his govenment. We wish to add that Tompolo remains firm and reaffirm his endorsement of Mr President for second term and continues to work for its realisation.

    “Once again, the Federal Government and the general public should ignore the said publication.”