Court fixes November 20 for judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s ‘terrorism’ trial
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has scheduled November 20 for judgment in the terrorism case against Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date on Friday after Kanu again failed to open his defence, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so.
The court had previously adjourned the matter on October 24 to allow Kanu begin his defence on October 27. However, instead of proceeding, the defendant dismissed his legal team and opted to represent himself, maintaining that there was no valid case against him.
On November 4, the court issued a final warning, giving Kanu one last chance to open his defence or forfeit the right. But at Friday’s sitting, the IPOB leader insisted that the charges were unconstitutional and argued that his continued detention by the Department of State Services (DSS) was unlawful.
Kanu faulted the court for allegedly disregarding a Supreme Court decision that condemned his extraordinary rendition from Kenya and, according to him, warranted his immediate release. When the court reminded him that the same Supreme Court had ordered a retrial at the Federal High Court, he maintained that the terrorism charges had no legal basis.
Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, Kanu argued that there is no written law that establishes terrorism as a criminal offence in Nigeria.
During Friday’s proceedings, Kanu complained that he had an important process to file but had not been given the opportunity to do so. In response, Justice Omotosho directed the court registry to move temporarily to the courtroom to enable the filing. The court then stood down the matter for one hour to allow the process to be completed.
When the sitting resumed, prosecution counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) informed the court that he would not file a response to Kanu’s motion but would rely on some of the exhibits attached to the applications.
In the motion, Kanu is seeking to have his “not guilty” plea struck from the court’s records, claiming he was “deceptively arraigned” in violation of his constitutional rights.
After hearing the parties, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until November 20 for judgment.
