Nnamdi Kanu Seeks Court of Appeal Intervention to Halt Federal High Court Judgment in Terrorism Case

The detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has petitioned the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, requesting an order to stop the Federal High Court from delivering judgment in his ongoing terrorism trial.

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court had scheduled November 20 for judgment in the case, which has been ongoing since 2015. The date was fixed on November 7 after Kanu was given multiple opportunities to present his defense.

Earlier, Kanu had dismissed his legal team and chosen to represent himself, later arguing that there were no valid charges against him warranting a defense. In a no-case submission, he contended that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act under which he was charged had been repealed, seeking his release. Justice Omotosho dismissed the submission and repeatedly allowed Kanu chances to defend himself before setting the judgment date.

In a last attempt to delay proceedings, Kanu requested an indefinite adjournment from the judge on Tuesday, which was denied. Undeterred, he approached the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, seeking to halt the impending judgment.

In his appeal, Kanu, as appellant, with the Federal Government as respondent, argued that the lower court erred in dismissing his no-case submission without examining the legal validity of the charges. He further claimed that the Federal High Court wrongly upheld the charges based on a repealed law and failed to address the constitutional issue of jurisdiction.

Kanu also alleged that Justice Omotosho did not properly evaluate prosecution evidence or cross-examinations and restricted him from calling 23 witnesses until after the judgment, effectively denying him the right to defend himself. He warned that proceeding with judgment could result in unlawful conviction, rendering his appeal a mere “academic exercise.”

In a 13-paragraph affidavit, Kanu cited disobedience to a Supreme Court ruling on count seven of the charges and failure to apply mandatory provisions under Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. He maintained that counts one to six are based on a repealed statute, arguing there are no valid charges against him.

He stated, “The respondent will suffer no prejudice if this application is granted. Conversely, refusal would constitute an injustice by infringing on my constitutional right of appeal.”

No hearing date has yet been set for the Court of Appeal motion.