Kanu Moves to Delay Terrorism Trial Judgment Amid Legal Challenges

Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has asked the Federal High Court to postpone the November 20 judgment in his terrorism trial, arguing that the charges against him were brought under a law that no longer exists.

Kanu is facing a seven-count terrorism case, in which the government alleges he led a separatist movement in parts of southeastern Nigeria and incited violence through broadcasts and illegal importation of a radio transmitter. While the prosecution has closed its case, Kanu, now representing himself after parting ways with his legal team, insists he will not defend charges he describes as invalid and unconstitutional.

In a fresh motion filed on November 10, Kanu cited the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013 and sections of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that his trial under the defunct law contravenes his rights to a fair hearing. He also referenced the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, demanding that the court recognize the nullity of proceedings tied to repealed statutes.

Challenging Jurisdiction and Due Process

Kanu contends that his plea, allegedly recorded in March 2023, was taken under a law that no longer existed, rendering it void and incapable of granting jurisdiction. He further challenged the trial court’s authority, noting that under the 2022 Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, the court lacked jurisdiction without proof that his alleged actions constituted an offense under Kenyan law or were backed by a valid extradition order.

The IPOB leader also argued that the use of forged documents in the proceedings amounted to constructive denial of fair hearing, asking the court to set aside all rulings overseen by Justice James Omotosho. He called for the judgment to be “arrested ex debito justitiae,” essentially asking the court to halt the delivery of its decision in the interest of justice.

Also read: Court Gives Nnamdi Kanu Final Chance to Defend Himself or Lose Right to Do So

Kanu’s latest motion represents a bold attempt to reshape the narrative of his trial by asserting constitutional and procedural breaches. Observers note that if successful, the delay could give him more time to prepare a defense on his own terms and challenge the legal foundations of the case.

For the court, the challenge is twofold: weighing the constitutional arguments against procedural timelines while addressing national security concerns tied to the terrorism charges. For Kanu and IPOB supporters, the motion underscores ongoing tensions between the group and federal authorities, highlighting the complex legal landscape surrounding high-profile separatist cases in Nigeria.