![Isa Menasiri [PHOTO CREDIT: Zainab Adewale]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2025/10/Isa-Menasiri-scaled-e1761334487791.jpg?resize=360%2C180&ssl=1)
![Fishers and traders in several coastal communities across Nigeria face relentless attacks at sea, compounding pressures from dwindling fish stocks. [Photo Credit: Ini Ekott]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2025/10/Lead-Image-scaled-e1760333868745.jpg?resize=360%2C180&ssl=1)
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to suspend judgment in his terrorism trial.
Judge James Omotosho had, last Friday, fixed 20 November for judgment after ruling that Mr Kanu’s defence was foreclosed, following the separatist’s insistence that he would not enter his defence under a repealed law.
Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
Open in WhatsAppMr Kanu, in a fresh motion filed on 10 November, which he personally signed, asked Mr Omotosho to suspend the judgment, arguing that the proceedings were conducted under a repealed and non-existent law.
Among his prayers is an order stopping the delivery of judgment in the case and a declaration that failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law, contrary to Section 122 of the Evidence Act, vitiates all steps taken under it.
|
|
|---|
“It is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to arrest judgment ex debito justitiae,” he said, arguing that his trial contravenes Supreme Court directives and Section 287(1) of the Constitution.
He said his prosecution under the “now-repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2013,” violates Sections 1(3), 36(1), – (12), and 42 of the Nigerian Constitution, as well as Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The IPOB leader also said the trial court is constitutionally bound to give effect to the Supreme Court’s finding that Count 15 (now Count 7) “does not exist in law,”. He added that failure to do so renders all subsequent proceedings null and void.
Citing Section 76(1)(a)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, Mr Kanu argued that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to try him without proof that the alleged conduct is an offence under Kenyan law or supported by a valid extradition order from a Kenyan court.
He also challenged the plea he entered on 29 March 2023, saying it was taken under a repealed law and in violation of Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
He claimed that he was misled into pleading under a non-existent law, in violation of Section 220 of the ACJA, 2015, and described the plea as “void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction.”
Mr Kanu alleged that the use of forged material in the proceedings amounted to a denial of fair hearing under Section 36(6) of the Constitution.
He, therefore, asked the court to set aside all rulings and proceedings presided over by Judge Omotosho on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and breach of constitutional supremacy.
The new motion echoes a similar one he filed on 7 November, the last date he was expected to open his defence, seeking to expunge his initial not-guilty plea from the court record.
In that 7 November application, Mr Kanu claimed that the plea was obtained deceptively in violation of Section 36 of the Constitution. He asked the court to set aside all previous orders and proceedings and to order his immediate release, arguing that he is being tried under a “non-existent law.”
The judge said on Friday that he would rule on Mr Kanu’s case and related applications on 20 November.
The Trial
Mr Kanu is facing terrorism-related charges brought by the federal government after his re-arrest in Kenya and forced return to Nigeria in 2021. He has since been in the custody of the State Security Service (SSS) in Abuja.
The case, which began in 2015, was stalled for about three years after Mr Kanu fled the country following a military raid on his home in Abia State in September 2017.
The prosecution closed its case in June this year. Mr Kanu subsequently filed a no-case submission, arguing that the prosecution failed to present credible evidence against him. The court dismissed the submission, ruling that he had a case to answer.
Following that ruling, he filed another motion on 21 October, personally signed, listing serving and retired public officers and unnamed individuals as proposed defence witnesses.
READ ALSO: Tinubu sends delegation to UK, seeks Ekweremadu’s transfer to Nigeria
He said he planned to call 23 witnesses, divided into “ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable” ones, to be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011. He also asked for 90 days to conclude his defence.
At the hearing on 23 October, scheduled for him to open his defence, Mr Kanu announced the disengagement of his legal team led by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi.
After several adjournments, the judge gave him a final chance on 5 November to open his defence. When he again refused on 7 November, the court fixed 20 November for judgment.
