The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, overruled Nnamdi Kanu on his argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him on alleged terrorism charge.
Justice James Omotosho held that issues raised by Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to challenge the court jurisdiction, had already been decided by the court.
Justice Omotosho, who urged Kanu to make use of the opportunity that the constitution gives him under Section 36 to defend himself, then ordered him to enter his defence.
The judge then adjourned the trial until Oct. 24 for the IPOB leader to open his defence.
Earlier when the matter was called, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, announced his appearance for the prosecution.
However, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, who had been representing the IPOB leader, stood up and told the court that he and his team were only in court out of the respect for the court.
Agabi said they were in court to formally announce their withdrawal from further participating in the trial.
He explained that the reason for their decision “is because the defendant has taken this case back from us and we respect that.”
He gave the names of the other senior advocates, who are also withdrawing from the case to include Onyechi Ikpeazu, Joseph Akubo, Paul Erokoro, Emeka Etiaba and one other.
Following Agabi’s announcement, Justice James Omotosho turned to Kanu, who was in the dock, for his response.
Kanu confirmed disengaging all his lawyers and told the court that he was willing and ready to conduct his case by himself.
Justice Omotosho then directed that other members of the defendant’s legal team, who were in court, except the SANs, should vacate the courtroom immediately, a directive they promptly complied with.
The judge then turned to Kanu who was in the dock, and asked him to open his case.
In response, Kanu commenced by indicating his intention to make an oral submission.
Justice Omotosho granted the defendant’s application despite opposition from Awomolo.
Kanu then said that he would not open his defence as ordered by the court because he was questioning the jurisdiction of the court to try him.
“This is a jurisdictional issue that goes to the heart of this case,” he said.
He hinged his objection to the court’s jurisdiction on four grounds.
The IPOB leader, in his first ground, argued that the Federal Government, through the prosecution, was in contempt of a Court of Appeal judgment, which he said ordered his acquittal.
Kanu argued that for the court to grant the prosecution audience, it (the prosecution) must first comply with the said Court of Appeal judgment.
He said the second ground was that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and and Customs and Excise Act, under which the charge against him was brought, are repealed laws.
Giving the third ground, the IPOB leader claimed to have been denied fair hearing.
He said his continued detention in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) had denied him the opportunity for adequate consultation with his lawyers to enable him prepare for his defence.
He hinged the fourth ground on his claim that the medical report submitted to the court by a medical team empanelled by the president of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), which certified him fit to stand trial, was forged.
Kanu denied being examined by any medical team and that his blood and urine samples were never obtained for analysis.
He, therefore, urged the court to declare the proceedings void and order his immediate release in line with the Court of Appeal judgment.
Reacting, Awomolo said Kanu deserved no formal response from the prosecution because all the allegations he made ought to be put down in the form of a sworn affidavit and effectively demonstrated to enable the other party respond appropriately.
The senior lawyer faulted Kanu’s claim that a Court of Appeal’s decision acquitted him, arguing that the said judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on Dec. 15, 2023.
“The judgments of the Supreme Court that was given on December 15, 2023 has set aside the judgment they are claiming discharged him.
“If he has a preliminary objection he should file it and demonstrate all his claims,” Awomolo added.
The prosecuting lawyer also faulted Kanu’s claim that his right to fair hearing was breached.
Awomolo argued that Kanu’s claim that the medical report was forged was an indictment on the senior lawyers, who were in his legal team, who saw the report and found no fault in it.
He prayed the judge to determine all the issues that Kanu raised in his submission when delivering the final judgment.
Justice Omotosho held that when the medical report was bought up in court on Oct. 16, he sought the views of lawyers to both parties, who did not raise any objection to the report.
The judge said since the report had been admitted by the court, acted on same and made decisions based on it, the court could no longer go back on it.
He declared that all the decisions taken by the court, based on the medical report, stand.
The judge further observed that all the issues raised by Kanu were also substantially raised in the no-case submission which the court declined in a ruling delivered on Sept. 26.
“On the 26th of September, 2025, I considered those issues and held that he has a case to answer.
“This was to enable him exercise his right to fair hearing to make his case,” the judge said.
Justice Omotosho recalled that in the spirit of fair hearing, he vacated the courtroom on Wednesday from 9am to 2pm to enable Kanu and his lawyers have a private consultation session.
He said this was despite the absence of evidence to support Kanu’s claim that his conversation was being secretly recorded by the DSS whose custody he is being detained.
The judge said although all the issues raised by Kanu’s submission had previously been determined by the court, the defendant would not be foreclosed.
According to the judge, the defendant can still raise them at the final written address.
Justice Omotosho then proceeded to call on Kanu to open his defence and overruled him when he attempted to insist on his objection to the court’s jurisdiction.
“I call upon and appeal to the defendant to open his defence.
“I beg the defendant, in the name of the Almighty God, to comport himself and conduct his defence.
“This is the opportunity that the constitution gives him under Section 36.
“It is a right that he can exercise or waive either expressly or by conduct.
“I beg and I appeal to the defendant to make use of the opportunity, given him by the constitution, to put in his defence, except he choses to waive it either expressly or by conduct,” the judge said.
At that point, Ikpeazu, who had earlier withdrew his appearance alongside Agabi, stood up to intervene.
The lawyer drew the attention of the court to the fact that their (Kanu’s lawyers’) withdrawal took effect on the morning of Thursday.
Ikpeazu prayed the court to grant Kanu few time to gather his thoughts and compose himself for the task ahead.
Taking a hint from what Ikpeazu said, Kanu said: “In the exercise of my right, I wish to state on record that I have not had the opportunity to prepare for my defence.
“I only had three hours yesterday in this courtroom.
“Section 36 of the Constitution allows me to be given adequate facilities to defend myself. My lord, I need time,” he said.
Awomolo did not object, following which Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until Oct. 24 for Kanu to open his defence.
The judge said the opportunity given the defendant to conduct his defence began to run from Thursday.
The judge equally disclosed that he had signed the witness summons sought by Kanu and that they are available for him to collect and serve on the said witnesses as required.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, in a motion filed on Oct. 21, listed the names of prominent Nigerians he intended to call as witnesses.
