Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday gave Nnamdi Kanu seven days to file his final written address in the ongoing trial over alleged terrorism offences.
Justice Omotosho granted Kanu’s request for time to file his final written address following his decision not to open his defence after his no-case submission was rejected.
Recall that Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), had earlier indicated his intention to call no fewer than 23 witnesses in his defence.
Kanu, in a motion filed on Oct. 21, listed several prominent Nigerians and foreigners he planned to call as witnesses. In the application, which he personally signed, he categorised the proposed witnesses into those he described as “ordinary but material witnesses” and others he classified as “vital and compellable,” to be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
He had requested a 90-day period to conclude his defence due to the number of witnesses involved.
However, the IPOB leader later disengaged his legal team led by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice. He informed the court that he would represent himself, leading the judge to adjourn the matter until Friday.
His defence could not commence on Friday as scheduled because he complained that his former legal team had not handed over the case file. The judge therefore fixed Monday for the continuation of the trial.
In anticipation that Kanu would open his defence, the court reserved about five seats, each labelled “summoned witness.”
When the case was called, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, appeared for the prosecution. Kanu announced his own appearance, confirming that he was representing himself.
Awomolo reminded the court that the matter was slated for the defendant to open his defence.
Responding, Kanu, who earlier sat in the dock, stood and insisted that “there is actually no charge against me.”
He argued that there was no existing law supporting the charges and declared: “There is no case against me. If there is no case against me, it will be futile for me to enter any defence.”
Justice Omotosho then explained that a defendant has only three options after the prosecution closes its case. The first is to make a no-case submission, and if overruled, the defendant must then open a defence. Alternatively, the defendant may choose to rest on the prosecution’s case and file a written address, after which the prosecution replies and the court delivers judgment.
After listening, Kanu maintained: “My position is that there is no charge against me. There is no need for me to enter a defence.”
Justice Omotosho reminded him that the court had already ruled on his no-case submission and held that he had a case to answer. He stressed that the ruling remains valid.
Kanu then applied for one week to file a written address demonstrating why he believes no valid charge is pending against him. He further insisted that he had been subjected to a needless trial and detention. “You must please release me today or grant bail,” he said.
Awomolo submitted that Kanu’s position signified that he would not present any defence beyond arguments in law and urged the court to proceed towards judgment. He argued that the case had effectively been concluded since the defendant elected to rely on points of law.
Justice Omotosho, however, clarified that the defendant’s argument regarding the validity of the charge was itself a form of defence requiring written submissions that must be answered by the prosecution.
The judge urged Kanu to seek expert legal guidance before making further decisions. “I am inclined to grant you the adjournment you seek,” he said, emphasizing that criminal proceedings are complex and advising him to consult professionals.
Justice Omotosho noted that although Kanu had sacked his lawyers, the court retained a duty to ensure he understood the legal implications of his decisions as a self-represented defendant.
