In a stunning twist at the Federal High Court in Abuja, Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has refused to present a defense in his ongoing terrorism trial, insisting that the charges against him have no legal foundation. The declaration, made on Monday, adds a new layer of tension to one of Nigeria’s most divisive legal battles.
Kanu, who has been on trial since his controversial 2021 rearrest and rendition from Kenya, told the court he found no valid case to answer after reviewing the prosecution’s evidence. “I have gone through the case file and realised that there is no valid charge against me,” he stated, drawing both applause and criticism from observers. His decision came shortly after the court granted him time to summon witnesses and prepare his defense, a move many expected would mark a turning point in the trial.
Presiding Justice James Omotosho urged caution, advising Kanu to seek expert legal guidance before formalizing his stance. The judge directed him to submit a written address outlining his argument and serve it on the prosecution. The court fixed November 4, 5, and 6 for the adoption of final written addresses—or for Kanu to resume his defense should he change his mind.
The case, which revolves around 15 counts of alleged terrorism, treasonable felony, and incitement, has drawn global attention due to its political and ethnic implications. Kanu’s refusal to defend himself could either accelerate a verdict or further complicate proceedings. Legal analysts warn that his decision carries significant risks, potentially limiting his options on appeal.
Beyond the courtroom, the case continues to fuel debate in Nigeria’s South-East region. Influential figures such as Senator Ned Nwoko have renewed calls for Kanu’s release as part of wider peace initiatives, including state creation and dialogue. Kanu’s defiant move reinforces his stance on Biafran self-determination, a cause that remains deeply emotional for many in the region.
As Nigeria awaits the next court session, public reaction remains sharply divided. Supporters hail Kanu’s action as principled defiance against what they describe as political persecution, while critics see it as a risky gamble that could backfire. Whatever the outcome, the decision has reignited discussions on justice, governance, and the fragile balance between national unity and regional autonomy.
Be the first to comment