Terror Charges: Prosecution Urges Kanu to Defend Himself

A Federal High Court in Abuja has been asked to compel Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to present his defence in the terrorism case currently being tried against him.

Leading the prosecution, senior lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) made the request during Friday’s hearing, urging the court to dismiss the no-case submission filed by the defence team. Awomolo argued that Kanu must explain his alleged involvement in terrorism-related acts, including the incitement of violence and destruction, which reportedly led to the deaths of over 170 security personnel.

While adopting the prosecution’s written response opposing Kanu’s no-case submission, Awomolo maintained that enough evidence had been presented to justify requiring the defendant to open his defence. According to him, the prosecution had called five witnesses and submitted several exhibits—both audio and video—that link Kanu to the charges.

Contrary to the claims by Kanu’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), Awomolo insisted that the prosecution’s reply addressed all legal points raised by the defence and rendered their no-case application baseless.

Awomolo told the court that its role at this juncture was not to assess witness credibility, but simply to determine whether there is a prima facie case strong enough to call for a defence. He noted that the defence had prematurely attacked the reliability of the evidence, which was not appropriate at this stage of proceedings.

Highlighting portions of the evidence, Awomolo pointed out that Kanu had, in various recorded broadcasts, admitted to leading IPOB—a group already declared illegal—and had made inciting statements promoting violence. He challenged the defence’s assertion that Kanu’s statements were nothing more than bluster, arguing instead that they were deliberate efforts to incite fear and unrest.

“The law does not excuse statements that instill terror or incite violence,” Awomolo stated. “How can anyone suggest that someone who urged the killing of security personnel should walk free?”

He maintained that Kanu’s ultimate goal was the creation of an independent Biafra, and claimed this campaign contributed to the deaths of at least 170 security officers. “If he was just joking or creating content, he must come forward and explain the context of his remarks,” Awomolo said, rejecting the idea that such inflammatory rhetoric could be dismissed as mere boasting.

ALSO READ : How to Register a Political Party in Nigeria

Addressing the defence’s claim that Kanu had spent ten years in solitary confinement, Awomolo clarified that while Kanu was first arrested in 2015, he was released on bail in 2017, which he enjoyed until it was revoked in 2022 for breaching bail conditions. His current detention, he added, was sanctioned by the court.

He further accused Kanu’s legal team of causing delays in the trial, asserting that the prosecution had consistently been ready to proceed. “For three years, the defence was responsible for stalling this case. The delay is entirely their doing,” he alleged.

Responding to the claim that IPOB’s proscription was unlawful, Awomolo pointed out that the matter is still before the Supreme Court, making it inappropriate for the trial court to weigh in on its legality at this point.

Earlier in the session, Kanu’s lead counsel, Agabi, had argued that the prosecution’s case merely aimed to portray Kanu in a negative light, without establishing solid grounds for criminal charges.

Lead defence counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the prosecution failed to establish any element of the terrorism charges filed against Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). He argued that not a single witness had come forward to claim they were incited by Kanu’s broadcasts.

Agabi downplayed the content of Kanu’s public statements, saying, “This man was merely boasting. He said he could bring the world to a standstill—but that’s not a crime. People should not be prosecuted for making exaggerated claims.”

In support of his client’s stance, Agabi pointed to the widespread violence across Nigeria, asserting that Kanu had simply voiced concern over the nation’s security challenges. He said the defence presented evidence showing that both the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Adeola Ajayi, and former Defence Minister Theophilus Danjuma had, at various times, urged Nigerians to defend themselves against attacks.

Agabi maintained that Kanu had only called on people to protect themselves, which he argued was not criminal in nature.

He also challenged the admissibility of certain prosecution exhibits, including the End SARS panel report, arguing that it lacked proper authentication and should not be relied upon by the court.

Raising concerns about Kanu’s treatment in detention, Agabi told the court that his client had been kept in solitary confinement for over six years, in violation of international human rights standards, which limit such confinement to no more than 15 days. “This extended isolation has affected him psychologically. He’s no longer mentally sound,” Agabi claimed.

He further contended that the passage of time had affected the prosecution’s case. “This case has dragged on for a decade. Witnesses couldn’t recall key events—they repeatedly said ‘I don’t remember,’ ‘I don’t know,’ or ‘I’m not aware’ during cross-examination. These vague responses occurred more than 80 times in the court record,” he noted, arguing that such evidence falls short of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP CHANNEL

Agabi revealed that the defence raised 40 distinct legal points in its address, but the prosecution failed to respond to 10 of them. “If a prosecution fails to answer even one or two critical issues, an acquittal may be justified. In this instance, they ignored ten,” he said.

He also criticized the manner in which prosecution witnesses were used, pointing out that most were DSS operatives whose main role was to collect statements. “They did not conduct any investigations, which is why their responses were vague and unhelpful,” Agabi said.

The defence lawyer further asked the court to disregard any supplementary evidence submitted after the trial had begun, insisting it lacked credibility.

Agabi also questioned the multiple amendments made to the charge sheet—reportedly up to seven times—arguing that none of them mentioned any specific individuals whom Kanu was said to have incited.

Turning to the proscription of IPOB, Agabi maintained that such action could not be valid without express approval from the President. “There’s no valid proscription without presidential consent. If the government claims it has it, let them present the document,” he challenged.

He also submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the part of the case involving an allegedly smuggled transmitter, noting that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on that issue.

After hearing arguments from both prosecution and defence, Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter to October 10. On that date, the court is expected to rule on whether to uphold the defence’s no-case submission and discharge Kanu, or reject it and require him to open his defence.