In a dramatic turn at the federal court in Abuja, the presiding judge has handed Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), one last opportunity to begin his defence or lose the chance altogether. The warning comes after Mr. Kanu repeatedly declined to enter his defence in his ongoing terrorism trial.
At the hearing on Tuesday, the Honourable Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court made his stance clear: if Mr. Kanu fails to open his defence when the matter returns on 5 November 2025, the court may proceed to judgment without hearing any further arguments from him.
For the fourth time in a row, Mr. Kanu did not advance his defence. The court had already ruled that his submission of a “no-case” motion was inadequate and directed him either to file a proper final written address or begin his case. Instead, Mr. Kanu filed a motion and an affidavit challenging the validity of the charges against him.
In court, Mr. Kanu asserted that “there is no valid charge known to law pending against me,” and declared he would not enter a defence. He went further by demanding his release, stating he sees no lawful basis for his continued detention or trial.
Counsel for the prosecution, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), strongly criticised Mr. Kanu’s recent filings. He described them as improperly submitted and an attempt to delay proceedings. He urged the court to treat those documents as a final written address and proceed immediately to judgment.
However, the judge disagreed with the prosecution’s push to fast-track the matter. Justice Omotosho held that the documents will be considered “at the appropriate stage,” recognising that Mr. Kanu is representing himself and is not legally trained. The judge therefore granted him a final chance to consult a legal adviser before returning on the set date.
Background to the case stretches back several years. Mr. Kanu has been in detention since 2021, following a controversial rendition from Kenya to Nigeria. His trial has attracted intense national and international attention, sparking debate around due process, the right to fair hearing, and the nature of charges brought under Nigeria’s anti-terrorism laws.
The charges against Mr. Kanu stem from his leadership of IPOB, which the Nigerian government has designated a terror organisation. The nature of his alleged offences include terrorism-related activities, raising important questions about state power, separatist movements, and human rights in Nigeria. His refusal to open defence raises a fresh complication for the court.
The timing of the judge’s warning is significant. After the prosecution closed its case, the court had given Mr. Kanu until the last adjourned date – earlier in October – to respond by filing a final address or start his defence. His failure to take either option has triggered the court’s sharp language.
Legal observers say the court’s next move could set an important precedent. If judgment is entered without a defence, the court would be treating Mr. Kanu as having waived his right to be heard, which is rarely done in high-profile cases. The issue touches on the broader principle of fair trial under Nigeria’s constitution and international human-rights standards.
For the Nigerian public and media watchers, the case draws attention to how the justice system handles prominent political-and-security matters. The fact that Mr. Kanu is handling his own defence adds complexity — he has opted not to work with the legal team he previously retained. By representing himself, he has now filed his own motion and affidavit challenging the charge’s validity rather than proceeding with a standard defence.
On that point, Mr. Kanu argues that the state has no valid case against him in law, which raises the question of whether pre-trial motions and “no-case” arguments are being properly addressed in major security-related prosecutions in Nigeria. The prosecution, meanwhile, insists the filings are defective and mere delay tactics.
As the next hearing looms on 5 November 2025, all eyes will be on whether Mr. Kanu takes up the judge’s final offer to mount a defence or whether the case moves ahead without him. Should he fail to do so, the courtroom will proceed to judgment, potentially bringing a long-running matter closer to conclusion.
In the larger context, this trial is part of Nigeria’s attempt to navigate how to respond to separatist movements, terrorism laws and the rights of accused persons. The balancing act between national security and individual rights remains a live issue. Regardless of one’s view of Mr. Kanu or IPOB, the outcome of this case will likely resonate beyond this single trial — setting tone for how high-profile cases are managed in Nigeria’s courts.
For now, the message from the bench is clear: open your defence or risk losing the right to do so. The decision on 5 November could be the moment of reckoning for one of Nigeria’s most controversial trials.
