For the fourth time, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, on Tuesday, failed to open his defence in the seven-count terrorism charge filed against him by the Federal Government.
At the resumed hearing before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Kanu who has since dismissed his team of lawyers and now conducts his own defence—insisted that he has no case to answer.
He argued that in the absence of a valid and subsisting charge, there was no legal basis for him to either open his defence or file and exchange a final written address with the prosecution.
Kanu urged the court to take judicial notice of the motion he personally filed, along with a supporting affidavit, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to continue with the trial over what he described as an offence unknown to any extant Nigerian law.
The IPOB leader maintained that the charge against him was based on a repealed law and therefore void. He asked the court to order his immediate release from the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), where he has been detained since 2021.
According to him, “My lord, the very charge upon which the entire ruling was based does not exist. Even as I came to this court today, there is no charge against me.”
Kanu further argued that the Supreme Court, through Justice Lawal Garba, had held that the criminal code under which he is being tried no longer exists, and that the Federal Government has failed to comply with the apex court’s directive in his case.
However, the prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, disputed the competence of Kanu’s filings, describing the documents as “a piece of paper” that lacked legal validity.
He told the court: “My lord, on Friday, we were served with a piece of paper titled motion on notice and final address of the defendant. What I was served carries no stamp of the court, no signature of revenue collector, and no official endorsement.”
Awomolo argued that an unsigned document is worthless in law, relying on Supreme Court authorities, and urged the court to disregard Kanu’s motion.
He said the prosecution had already addressed all the issues Kanu raised such as the repealed law and the question of extraordinary rendition in its final written address, and was ready to adopt it so that judgment could be delivered.
He further urged the court not to indulge the defendant any longer, accusing Kanu of deliberately wasting judicial time.
But in a brief ruling, Justice Omotosho dismissed the prosecution’s objection, holding that the processes filed by Kanu would be taken into account in the court’s final judgment.
The judge noted that since Kanu is not a trained lawyer, the court would allow him an additional opportunity to consult legal practitioners for guidance before proceeding.
Justice Omotosho, however, cautioned that the court would not tolerate further delay. He warned that should Kanu fail to enter his defence within the period given, his right to do so would be deemed waived.
The judge also reminded Kanu that the Supreme Court had ordered a retrial, implying that the apex court expects the case to proceed.
“My duty is to ensure that you are given a fair hearing. But if the Supreme Court did not want you to face trial, it would not have sent the file back for retrial,” the judge said.
He urged Kanu to consult legal experts to better understand the implications of his decision not to defend himself.
Justice Omotosho then adjourned the matter until November 5 for Kanu to either open his defence or forfeit his right to do so.
The court had earlier, on October 27, adjourned the case to November 4 for Kanu to file his final written address or open his defence.
