Lawyers speak on implications of Nnamdi Kanu’s refusal to enter defence

Nigerian lawyers have shed light on the implications of Nnamdi Kanu’s refusal to enter defence against terrorism charges filed against him by the federal government.

Mr Kanu, leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is being tried at a Federal High Court, Abuja.

---

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

The IPOB leader has been in detention since he was repatriated to Nigeria from Kenya in June 2021 under controversial circumstances.

He was supposed to begin his defence on Monday after the federal government closed its case against him, but Mr Kanu told the court he would no longer enter defence because he did not see any valid charges against him.

‘It’s a risky decision,’ Lawyers react

A human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, said Mr Kanu was taking a “risky gamble”, considering that the court had initially dismissed his no-case submission filed by his lawyers.

Mr Effiong, in a Facebook post on Monday, said the IPOB leader was no longer in position to contend that he has no case to answer.

“There are two options that he can explore: either he opens his defence, or he rests his case on the case of the prosecution.

“He has indicated that he no longer intends to open his defence. However, the law is firmly settled that a defendant has no obligation to prove or establish his or her innocence,” he said.

Continuing, the lawyer said: “Since this defendant, Kanu, had pleaded not guilty to the charges, the court will now have to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to see whether the elements of the offences charged have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

“The fact that Kanu has elected to pursue his case in this manner is not going to be construed as an admission of guilt.

“However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution team would be deemed as unchallenged, save for the evidence elicited under cross examination.”

Mr Effiong stressed that, given the current situation, the court now has the responsibility to make determinations based on the evidence of the prosecution and Mr Kanu’s statements during cross examinations.

“I don’t know who’s advising Kanu, or what his motivation is, but he is taking a very risky decision,” the lawyer maintained.

Like Mr Effiong, Monday Ubani, said Mr Kanu’s argument that he has no case to answer is immaterial because the court had ruled against his earlier no-case submission.

Mr Ubani, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, told PREMIUM TIMES on Tuesday that the IPOB leader’s recent strategy was “a wrong procedure in criminal trial.”

The lawyer further said even if Mr Kanu should file an appeal for his no-case submission, it would not stop his ongoing trial, citing the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015) which provides that appeal on preliminary matter does not stop trial at a lower court.

“If he’s saying that (he has no charges to defend), that means he has adopted a position not to defend himself.

“That was why the court asked him to put his position in writing because if he makes the mistake of penning this his position in writing to the court, the court will rely on his statement and the evidence of the prosecution to give judgement,” he said.

“His position means that, apart from his cross examination, he has not contradicted the evidence adduced by the prosecution.”

Mr Ubani corroborated Mr Effiong’s position that there are three options available to Mr Kanu in this trial.

“It is either he relies on evidence of the prosecution, or goes ahead to defend himself by calling witnesses or keeps silent and not defend himself.

“The court will have to give interpretation to the position he’s adopting now, meaning that it is either he doesn’t want to defend himself or relying on evidence of the prosecution to give judgement. Whichever case has a grave implication for him,” he said.

Court may rely on evidence by prosecution

Vincent Adodo, another lawyer, told this newspaper that the key implication of Mr Kanu’s decision not to enter defence was that he has rested his case on that of the prosecution.

“What that means is that the court is now left with the only option of considering the evidence of the prosecution to see if the ingredients of the offences charged have been proven,” Mr Adodo, who is based in Abuja, said.

The lawyer argued that Mr Kanu’s recent claim that he has no charges to defend amounted to going back to what the court had earlier decided on when the IPOB leader had his no-case submission dismissed.

“The court, knowing the gravity of the decision he has taken, advised him to consult criminal law experts so that he can be properly advised and guided on the implications of the option he has taken,” he said.

“Like I said, it is a risky venture and decision.”

Background

Mr Kanu was first arrested in 2015 under the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari.

The IPOB leader was discharged and acquitted by the Court of Appeal in Abuja in 2022, but the Nigerian government blocked his release.

The government claimed that he (Kanu) could be unavailable in subsequent court proceedings if he was released and that his release would cause insecurity in the South-east, where he comes from.

They later appealed the court ruling and subsequently obtained a Supreme Court order staying the execution of the court judgement.

On 15 December 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal granted to Mr Kanu by the lower court and consequently ordered continuation of his trial at the Federal High Court Abuja.

On 19 June 2025, the Nigerian government closed its case against the IPOB leader after the 5th prosecution witness was led in evidence and cross-examined by Mr Kanu’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu, before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

However, rather than opening his defence, Mr Kanu, through his lawyers, instead filed 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.

Despite initial opposition by prosecuting lawyers, the court later accepted Mr Kanu’s application for the no-case submission.

But on 26 September, the court dismissed the no-case submission filed by Mr Kanu and ordered him to enter his defence.

In a surprise move on 24 October, the Biafra agitator sacked all his lawyers and opted to defend himself before naming top past and serving government officials as witnesses ahead of his planned defence.

On Monday, Mr Kanu told the court that he would not enter his defence in the terrorism trial, insisting that there were no valid charges against him.

He claimed that he had reviewed the case of the prosecution and found it was not worth defending.

But the Judge, James Omotosho, directed Mr Kanu to file a written address to that effect and serve the prosecution.

The judge also advised him to consult experts in criminal law on the implications of the decision he had taken before adjourning the trial until 4 November.