Nigerian Government Opposes Nnamdi Kanu’s No-case Submission, Court Sets Date For Ruling

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday 18th of July, fixed 10th of October, 2025 to decide whether or not to free the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, from the terrorism charges against him.

Judge James Omotosho fixed the date for ruling after Mr Kanu’s no-case submission.

Mr Kanu filed the no-case submission after the prosecution closed its case in June, urging the court to excuse him from putting forward any defence and dismiss the charges. But the Nigerian government’s prosecution team asked the court to throw the application out, insisting the IPOB leader has a case to answer.

The IPOB leader faces terrorism charges which stemmed from his agitation for the secession of the Nigeria’s South-east and parts of neighbouring states as an independent state of Biafra.

The prosecution closed its case on 19 June, after its fifth witness finished testifying.

But instead of opening his defence, Mr Kanu, through his lawyers, said he would rather file a no-case submission to seek the dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish any case against him to warrant him entering any defence.

The trial judge, James Omotosho, then gave the defence 14 days to file their proposed no-case submission.

During Friday’s hearing, prosecution lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged the court to dismiss Mr Kanu’s application and order him to enter his defence.

He argued that the prosecution had led enough evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, who is facing terrorism-related charges.

Mr Awomolo maintained that the prosecution’s case, built on the testimony of five witnesses and several exhibits including audio and video materials, demonstrated Mr Kanu’s alleged roles in inciting violence and causing the deaths of at least 170 security personnel.

Mr Awomolo said the evidence presented by the prosecution was strong enough to warrant a defence from Mr Kanu. “The evidence is clear,” he told the court.

He faulted the argument by Mr Kanu’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi, a SAN and former Attorney General of the Federation, that incendiary broadcasts credited to the IPOB leader were merely boastful and should not attract criminal sanctions.

According to Mr Awomolo, the IPOB leader made broadcasts encouraging violence, destruction, and the killing of security operatives acts which, he said, are clearly prohibited by law.

Reading from the defence’s written address, Mr Awomolo countered the position that the defendant was merely boasting. “If the defendant believes he was joking or acting as a content creator, then he should explain why he was boasting in a manner that spread fear and led to violence,” he said.

He said Mr Kanu admitted in several video and audio clips to being the leader of IPOB, a group he was aware had been proscribed. In those clips, the prosecutor added, Mr Kanu called for attacks and urged followers to kill.

“Why will somebody say a terrorist who boasted that security men should be killed should go free?” Mr Awomolo asked. “In the process of pushing his secessionist agenda, more than 170 security men were killed.”

On the claim that Mr Kanu had been held in solitary confinement for 10 years, Mr Awomolo clarified that the defendant was first arrested in 2015, granted bail in 2017, and only returned to custody in 2022 after the court revoked his bail.

He said the current detention was lawful and sanctioned by the court, noting that the delays in the case were largely caused by the defence team. “For three years, the defence lawyers delayed the trial. It is not true that this case has lasted 10 years; they are the ones causing the delay,” he said.

Mr Awomolo also dismissed the claim that IPOB was not lawfully proscribed. He said that since the legality of the proscription is now before the Supreme Court, it would be inappropriate for the trial court to revisit the matter.

‘Why charges against Kanu should be struck out’

Responding, the defence lawyer, Mr Agabi, argued that the prosecution failed to prove any of the terrorism charges brought against his client. He contended that no evidence was tendered to show that anyone acted on Mr Kanu’s alleged broadcasts.

Mr Agabi argued that the statements made by his client were harmless.

“This man can boast. He was just boasting. He said, ‘I can bring the world to a standstill.’ I don’t see anything wrong with that,” Mr Agabi told the court.

“You don’t prosecute a man for mere boasting,” he added.

The senior lawyer said Mr Kanu’s comments should be seen in the context of Nigeria’s general insecurity, which he was equally concerned about.

He said that in some materials tendered by the defence, top officials like the Director General of the State Security Services (SSS), Adeola Ajayi, and former Defence Minister Theophilus Danjuma were heard urging Nigerians to defend themselves.

“What the defendant said was that the people should defend themselves,” Mr Agabi argued.

He challenged the admissibility of an #EndSARS report submitted by the prosecution, claiming it lacked authentication. He also said Mr Kanu had been held in solitary confinement for over six years, in violation of international legal standards which prohibit such conditions beyond 15 days.

He is no longer normal on account of his solitary confinement,” Mr Agabi told the court. “The case has dragged for so long that even prosecution witnesses have lost memory, saying ‘I don’t remember, I am not aware, I do not know’ over 80 times during cross-examination.”

He added that the prosecution witnesses merely obtained statements and were all drawn from the SSS, with no external corroboration or cross-examination of doctors for the alleged death reports tendered.

The defence lawyer also noted that the charges had been amended seven times, yet failed to name any individuals allegedly incited by Mr Kanu’s broadcasts.

Mr Agabi further argued that the proscription of IPOB was invalid without presidential approval. “We are saying there is no valid proscription because there is no presidential approval. If they have it, they should bring it,” he said.

He said the trial court lacked jurisdiction over some of the charges, such as the alleged unlawful importation of a transmitter, citing a previous ruling of the Court of Appeal.

After listening to arguments from both sides, Judge Omotosho fixed 10 October for ruling, which could uphold the no-case submission and discharge the defendant or reject it and direct him to open his defence.

The prosecution opened its case on 29 April, with its first witness testifying after 10 years of stop-start proceedings. The judge granted the prosecution team permission to shield the identities of witnesses lined up to testify against Mr Kanu.

The case was originally instituted in 2015 following Mr Kanu’s arrest in Lagos.

Major setbacks have held the case down for almost a decade, making it impossible for the prosecution to call witnesses and present exhibits until Tuesday.

The case started with four people initially charged as Mr Kanu’s co-defendants. However, in February 2018, the then-trial judge Binta Nyako severed the trial, separating Mr Kanu—who had fled Nigeria—from the other defendants. The trial severance allowed the prosecution to continue proceedings against the four remaining co-defendants.

The Nigerian government would re-arrest Mr Kanu in Kenya in June 2021.

But despite the re-arrest and his subsequent detention in SSS custody in Abuja since then, the case had been unable to proceed to trial.

In October 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld Mr Kanu’s preliminary objection challenging the validity of the charges. The court dismissed the charges, citing the illegality of the “extraordinary rendition” of Mr Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 to continue his trial.

However, in December 2023, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Kudirat Kekere-Ekun overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and ordered the trial to continue at the Federal High Court.

The Supreme Court ruled, although Mr Kanu’s forcible repatriation from Kenya to Nigeria was illegal, no Nigerian law prohibited the use of “illegally obtained evidence for the trial of a defendant.”