The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, urging the court to defer the judgment earlier fixed for November 20, 2025, in his ongoing terrorism trial.
Kanu’s legal team, led by his counsel Aloy Ejimakor, argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to deliver any judgment because the statutes upon which he was charged have been repealed and are therefore invalid.
According to the motion, Kanu seeks “an order setting aside the scheduled judgment date and declaring that all proceedings conducted under repealed laws are null and void.”
Kanu’s Legal Argument
The IPOB leader’s legal team maintains that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, under which Kanu was charged, has been overtaken by subsequent legislation and cannot form the basis for a valid trial.
Kanu also contends that he was denied a fair hearing, alleging that several of his pending motions were ignored and that he was not given the opportunity to properly open his defence before the court closed the case for judgment.
Ejimakor emphasized that “the constitution guarantees every accused person the right to a fair hearing, which includes the right to be heard before any final judgment is delivered.”
Background of the Case
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja had earlier fixed November 20 as the date for judgment in the federal government’s terrorism case against Kanu.
The government accuses the IPOB leader of spearheading activities aimed at undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty through the group’s separatist agenda. Kanu faces seven counts of terrorism and incitement, all of which he denies.
He has been in detention since his re-arrest in 2021, after being extradited from Kenya. His detention has since fueled tensions in Nigeria’s southeast, where his supporters frequently demand his release.
Tension in the Southeast
The latest legal move has once again reignited debates across the southeast. Supporters of Kanu argue that the trial has become a political witch-hunt, while government officials insist that due process is being followed.
Public reactions on social media show a sharp divide: while some Nigerians urge the judiciary to ensure fairness, others call for a swift resolution to end what they describe as a “lingering distraction” in the country’s justice system.
Residents in parts of Enugu, Abia, and Anambra states report renewed anxiety ahead of the scheduled judgment, with local groups warning of possible unrest if the ruling goes against Kanu.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Constitutional lawyer Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said Kanu’s motion raises serious legal questions about jurisdiction and the validity of repealed laws.
“If the law upon which a charge is founded has been repealed, it naturally affects the legitimacy of the proceedings,” he said, adding that “the court must address such issues before proceeding to judgment.”
However, another legal analyst, Dr. Chidi Odinkalu, urged caution, stressing that procedural delays could prolong justice. “While jurisdictional arguments are valid, continuous adjournments risk undermining public confidence in the justice system,” he said.
Government’s Position
Federal prosecutors maintain that the charges against Kanu remain valid and that the case has been handled according to due process. They insist that the alleged repealed sections do not nullify the substance of the accusations.
A senior official from the Ministry of Justice, who spoke anonymously, stated that “Kanu’s team is free to pursue every legal remedy available, but this motion may not stop the inevitable conclusion of the case.”
Possible Outcomes
If the court grants Kanu’s request to defer judgment, the case will likely return to the pre-judgment stage, where both sides may file fresh submissions or amendments.
However, if the motion is dismissed, the November 20 judgment will proceed as scheduled—a ruling that could shape the course of Nigeria’s justice system and test the resilience of its democratic institutions.
Observers say the outcome will either reaffirm the independence of the judiciary or fuel further distrust among citizens who already question the fairness of high-profile political trials.
Public Reaction and Political Implications
Nnamdi Kanu’s trial has consistently drawn global attention, especially from human rights groups who accuse the government of violating his rights during detention.
Supporters of the IPOB leader are calling for international monitoring of the November 20 proceedings to ensure transparency. Civil society organizations have also urged restraint, appealing to both sides to avoid actions that could inflame tensions in the southeast.
The case has significant political implications, particularly ahead of the 2026 general elections, as southeastern leaders seek to calm unrest and rebuild trust between the region and the federal government.
Comments
Post a Comment