The Scene — A Courtroom Turns Political
At precisely 10:42 a.m. on Monday, October 27, 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja became the stage for one of Nigeria’s most audacious acts of defiance.
Standing in the dock without a lawyer, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, announced he would not enter a defence.
“There is no extant law in this country upon which the prosecution can predicate the charges against me. If there’s any, let my Lord read it out to me,” Kanu said.
“So, I should not enter any defence in a charge that does not exist under any law in Nigeria.”
The declaration stunned the courtroom. It wasn’t just legal dissent — it was rebellion wrapped in judicial procedure.
A Legal Gambit or a Political Statement?
Under Nigeria’s criminal procedure, a defendant is required to open a defence once the prosecution closes its case and the court dismisses any “no-case submission.”
But Kanu, invoking constitutional rhetoric and political bravado, chose a different path — effectively rejecting the trial’s legitimacy.
It was the latest twist in a week of drama that began with his dismissal of his entire legal team led by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi (SAN), and culminated in this self-representation moment.
Legal analysts see two layers in Kanu’s defiance:
- Legal Strategy: A protest against what he calls “fraudulent charges” and an attempt to force the court into a procedural corner.
- Political Theatre: A calculated act of symbolism — framing the case as state persecution, not prosecution.
For the government, it is a challenge to judicial authority; for his supporters, it is the assertion of a man refusing to legitimise his own oppression.
The Judge’s Caution — Between Law and Humanity
Presiding Judge James Omotosho cut the figure of a man torn between jurisprudence and empathy. He explained that the defendant had three options:
- File a no-case submission.
- Enter a defence if the no-case motion fails.
- Choose not to defend, relying solely on the prosecution’s evidence.
When Kanu insisted that “there is no case to defend,” Omotosho warned that “not entering a defence after a no-case submission has been overruled is very dangerous.”
“I know God will hold me responsible if I don’t caution you,” the judge said quietly.
He then adjourned the matter till 4–6 November, giving Kanu time to consult legal experts or submit a formal written address
The Biafra agitator’s courtroom journey reads like a political thriller:
- 2015: Arrested over pro-Biafra broadcasts and charged with terrorism and incitement.
- 2017: Granted bail, fled the country after his home in Abia State was invaded by soldiers.
- 2021: Rearrested in Kenya and returned to Nigeria under disputed circumstances.
- 2022: Court of Appeal frees him, declaring the extradition illegal.
- 2023: Supreme Court overturns that decision, ordering trial continuation.
- 2024–2025: Prosecution presents five witnesses; Kanu’s defence stalls amid multiple adjournments and health complaints.
Now, four years into detention, his declaration to “not defend” may paradoxically accelerate judgment — or spark new legal complications
From 23 Witnesses to Zero Defence
Just a week earlier, Kanu had filed a motion listing 23 defence witnesses — including public officers and “vital and compellable” personalities — under Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
He even sought 90 days to conclude testimony.
But by Monday, all that collapsed. The same man who once insisted on parading witnesses now claimed there was “no valid charge to defend.”
This dramatic shift underscores a pattern in his legal trajectory: oscillating between confrontation and withdrawal — a strategy some say is designed to exhaust the state’s machinery of prosecution.
The Charges — Terrorism, Incitement, and Symbolism
The prosecution accuses Kanu of using IPOB broadcasts to incite violence, threaten Nigerian security forces, and enforce illegal sit-at-home orders across the South-East.
One count alleges he issued a death threat in a 2018 broadcast:
“Anyone who flouts the sit-at-home order should write his or her will.”
Six of the seven charges are anchored under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, and one under the Criminal Code Act for alleged illegal importation of a radio transmitter.
The government argues that his rhetoric led to loss of lives and destruction of property across the region, though IPOB insists he only advocated self-determination — a right under international law.
The Deep Undercurrent — Law, Legitimacy, and Liberty
At the heart of the case lies a fundamental question:
Can a government prosecute separatist speech under the same law used to combat armed insurgency?
To many observers, the Kanu trial is less about terrorism and more about defining the boundaries of dissent in a federation still grappling with its national identity.
Human rights groups say Kanu’s four-year detention despite appellate rulings exposes the executive’s growing influence over judicial outcomes.
A senior Abuja lawyer told IDNN:
“The problem is no longer just Kanu’s rhetoric; it’s the precedent — that any politically inconvenient voice can be framed under terrorism.”
The Biafra Question Rekindled
While the courtroom deliberates legality, the streets of the South-East pulse with renewed emotion.
In Enugu, Aba, and Onitsha, murals of Kanu have resurfaced. Supporters stage quiet vigils, interpreting his defiance as symbolic of a people unheard.
The government, however, remains wary of renewed agitation, mindful that every court hearing risks reigniting the embers of secessionist sentiment.
Justice and the Cost of Perception
Nigeria’s judiciary faces not just a legal test, but a branding crisis. Every adjournment and contradiction deepens global scepticism about the country’s rule of law.
International investors and human rights partners track the case as a barometer of Nigeria’s democratic credibility.
If Kanu’s trial continues to appear politically choreographed, it could erode confidence in state institutions — and in the “Renewed Hope” government’s global messaging.
The Outlook — Trial or Turning Point?
As the court reconvenes in November, one outcome appears certain: the trial has transcended legality. It is now theatre — a contest between state power and the politics of symbolism.
Kanu’s choice not to defend may either hasten judgment or trigger a new wave of appeals that could outlive this administration.
Either way, his case remains Nigeria’s most potent intersection of law, nationalism, and defiance.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
