Court Sets November 20 for Judgment in Nnamdi Kanu Terrorism Case

The Federal High Court in Abuja has set November 20 for judgment in the terrorism case against Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB leader, after he refused to present his defense despite being granted six days to do so. Kanu argued that terrorism is no longer an offense and sought dismissal of the case, but the prosecution maintained the trial was lawful. The court ruled that he waived his right to a fair hearing and will deliver judgment on the fixed date.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has announced that November 20 has been set for judgment in the terrorism case against Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), following his refusal to present his defense despite being given six consecutive days to do so. This development marks a significant moment in the long-running legal proceedings that have captured national attention, as Kanu has remained in detention while challenging the charges against him.

On Friday, in a dramatic move, Kanu filed a motion asserting that terrorism is no longer considered an offense under Nigerian law. He argued that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, under which he was charged, had been repealed and therefore no valid charges could be brought against him. In the motion, he requested that the court dismiss the case entirely and order his immediate release. Additionally, Kanu sought to nullify his earlier “not guilty” plea and to set aside all subsequent proceedings in the matter, describing them as legally invalid and a “nullity.”

The Federal Government, through counsel Adegoboyega Awomolo, strongly opposed Kanu’s motion. Awomolo argued that there was no need for a counter-affidavit, urging the court to rely on the existing court records. He emphasized that Kanu’s refusal to present a defense should not be mistaken for a denial of fair trial and highlighted that the trial had been conducted in accordance with the law. The counsel stressed that the defendant was simply avoiding the opportunity to participate fully in his defense.

Justice James Omotosho, presiding over the case, noted that the matter, originally filed in 2015, had suffered several delays over the years before it was finally assigned for accelerated hearing in his court. The judge also stated that no preliminary objections would be entertained at this stage, signaling that the court was determined to bring the case to a conclusion.

In addressing the issue of fair hearing, Justice Omotosho emphasized that the court had taken extensive measures to ensure that Kanu was given every opportunity to present his defense. Numerous adjournments were granted at the request of the defendant, and the judge even personally appealed to him “in God’s name” to open his defense. Citing established Supreme Court authorities, he held that a defendant who fails to utilize the opportunity for a fair hearing cannot later claim that the right was denied.

Given that Kanu has now exhausted the time allocated for him to present his case without doing so, the court has formally fixed November 20 as the date for delivering judgment. This step brings the protracted legal battle closer to a resolution, ending months of speculation and uncertainty surrounding one of Nigeria’s most high-profile terrorism cases. The ruling is expected to have significant implications not only for Kanu and IPOB but also for the legal landscape regarding terrorism-related charges in Nigeria.