Physical Address
Awka Anambra State
Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has insisted that the Federal Government of Nigeria has failed to establish any valid terrorism charges against him. He, therefore, urged the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to discharge him immediately on grounds that the charges were baseless and unconstitutional.
The case, which has captured national and international attention, took a new twist on Monday as the trial judge gave Kanu until November 5, 2025, to take specific legal steps or risk waiving his right to challenge the prosecution’s claims.
Kanu Asks Court to Dismiss the Charges
In a passionate defense filed through his legal team, led by Barrister Alloy Ejimakor, the IPOB leader maintained that the charges brought against him by the Federal Government lacked merit and failed to meet the basic requirements of Nigerian criminal law.
Kanu’s lawyers argued that the prosecution had not provided any concrete evidence linking him to acts of terrorism or violence. According to them, most of the allegations were political in nature, targeting his right to self-determination and freedom of speech as protected under the Nigerian Constitution and international law.
The defense insisted that the government’s claims of terrorism were “a calculated attempt to criminalize legitimate agitation” and that no witness testimony or documentary evidence had proven Kanu’s involvement in any armed activity.
Court Issues Deadline for Compliance
During Monday’s proceedings, the trial judge emphasized the need for the defense to act within the stipulated timeframe. The court ruled that Kanu must file all necessary applications before November 5, 2025, to challenge the charges formally. Failure to comply, the judge warned, would result in the forfeiture of his right to raise those objections later in the trial.
The judge also cautioned both parties against actions that could delay proceedings, stressing that the court was determined to conclude the matter in line with due process and judicial integrity.
Observers at the court noted that the atmosphere was tense but orderly, with security operatives maintaining strict control around the premises.
Kanu’s Legal Argument: No Valid Terrorism Charge
In his motion, Kanu’s legal team drew the court’s attention to several key points:
- Defective Charges:
The defense claimed that the amended charges did not specify the exact acts of terrorism allegedly committed by Kanu, making them defective in law. - Violation of Rights:
They argued that Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021 violated international conventions and Nigeria’s own extradition laws, thereby invalidating the foundation of the prosecution’s case. - Lack of Jurisdiction:
The motion also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the matter, given that the alleged offences were committed outside the country. - Absence of Evidence:
The defense stated that the government had failed to produce tangible evidence such as forensic reports, communication logs, or financial transactions linking Kanu to acts of terrorism or armed conflict.
Ejimakor told the court that “what the government calls terrorism is nothing more than political expression,” asserting that Kanu’s speeches and broadcasts merely advocated for peaceful separation, not violence.
Federal Government’s Response
In a counterargument, the Federal Government’s legal team, led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), dismissed the defense’s claims as “a deliberate attempt to evade justice.”
The prosecution maintained that Kanu’s actions and broadcasts had incited violence across the South-East, leading to loss of lives, destruction of property, and disruption of public peace.
Awomolo argued that Kanu’s continued influence over IPOB and its militant wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), constituted sufficient grounds for the terrorism charges. He urged the court to dismiss the defense motion and proceed with the substantive trial.
He also noted that Kanu’s legal team had filed multiple applications aimed at delaying proceedings, adding that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
The Political and Legal Implications
The ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu remains one of the most politically charged cases in Nigeria’s recent history. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for national security, human rights, and regional stability.
Kanu’s supporters see him as a freedom fighter advocating for the rights of the Igbo people, while his critics describe him as a separatist leader whose rhetoric has fueled unrest.
Legal analysts say the Federal High Court’s decision to give him until November 5 to act could be a turning point. If Kanu fails to meet the deadline, his legal options may become significantly limited, paving the way for a full trial on the merits of the charges.
Others, however, argue that the government risks international backlash if it continues to detain Kanu without concrete evidence or a fair trial.
Reactions from Supporters and Human Rights Groups
Following the court proceedings, Kanu’s supporters gathered outside the Federal High Court in solidarity, chanting pro-Biafra songs and demanding his unconditional release.
Human rights organizations also weighed in, calling on the Nigerian government to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to rule of law throughout the trial.
One rights group noted that “the government must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kanu’s actions meet the definition of terrorism under Nigerian law. Otherwise, his prolonged detention will remain a human rights concern.”
Meanwhile, several political observers urged both sides to pursue dialogue rather than confrontation, noting that Nigeria’s unity can only be sustained through justice and inclusivity.
Next Steps in the Legal Process
With the November 5 deadline approaching, all eyes are now on Kanu’s legal team to see how they will proceed. The defense is expected to file additional applications challenging the legality of the charges and possibly seek Kanu’s bail on medical or constitutional grounds.
The Federal Government, on its part, has indicated readiness to proceed with the trial, insisting that national security interests must not be compromised.
Court officials confirmed that the next hearing would focus on preliminary objections, after which the judge will determine whether the charges should be struck out or proceed to full trial.
Conclusion
As the November 5 deadline looms, the legal battle between Nnamdi Kanu and the Federal Government continues to grip national attention. The IPOB leader’s insistence that there is no valid terrorism charge against him sets the stage for a landmark ruling that could redefine the boundaries between national security enforcement and citizens’ rights in Nigeria.
For Kanu’s supporters, his demand for discharge represents a struggle for justice and freedom. For the Federal Government, it is a test of sovereignty and the rule of law.
Whatever the court decides, the case will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of Nigeria’s security policies, human rights discourse, and political landscape for years to come.
