The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, will today know his fate in the prolonged legal battle with the Federal Government. A court presided over by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja is expected to rule on several applications filed by both Kanu and the Federal Government, including a request by the IPOB leader challenging the competence of the charges against him and seeking his release on grounds of alleged unlawful detention and violations of his fundamental rights.
Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services since June 2021, following his controversial interception and return to Nigeria from Kenya in circumstances his lawyers describe as “extraordinary rendition”. He is facing seven terrorism-related charges bordering on alleged incitement, running an unlawful group, and acts threatening national security allegations he strongly denies.
Justice Omotosho, on November 7, fixed Thursday to deliver judgment in the charges brought against Kanu. He announced the date after ruling on the matter when Kanu failed to open his defence, having exhausted the six days allocated to him by the court to present it. While Kanu did not open his defence after the prosecution closed its case, the IPOB leader filed a fresh motion challenging his trial.
He argued that the earlier Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed, meaning there were no valid charges against him. He asked the court to expunge from its record “the purported plea of not guilty entered by him,” claiming it was based on deception and given in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision. He further sought an order setting aside all subsequent proceedings, insisting they were based on a nullity.
Kanu also asked the court to hold that the charges disclosed no offence known to law because they were allegedly based on a repealed terrorism law. He requested that the charge be struck out for want of jurisdiction and that he be released. He urged the court to dismiss the charges and allow him to go home.
Justice Omotosho, however, held that since Kanu did not utilise the opportunity granted to him to conduct his defence, he could not claim that he was denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing. He reiterated that no ruling or preliminary objection would be determined at this stage.
He noted that the case, filed in 2015, had suffered several delays before being reassigned to his court earlier this year, where it received accelerated hearing. He stated that the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered multiple exhibits before closing its case on June 19, 2025.
The judge observed that several adjournments were granted at the request of the defendant, who sought to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. He recalled that Kanu’s no-case submission was overruled, and the defendant was asked to open his defence. Omotosho stressed that the court ensured a fair hearing, but noted that Kanu, despite initially agreeing to enter his defence, abandoned it and began arguing that no existing law covered the charges against him.
He said the defendant had not shown seriousness in the proceedings, adding that he had personally appealed to Kanu “in God’s name” to present his defence and engage counsel. Citing Supreme Court authorities, Omotosho held that if a defendant fails to utilise the opportunity of a fair hearing, the court cannot compel him to enter his defence. He ruled that on that basis, Kanu had waived his right to defence and then fixed a date for judgment.
Kanu’s legal journey has been marked by repeated adjournments, court orders, appeals, and counter-applications. In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged him of all charges and ordered his release, ruling that his rendition from Kenya violated international law. The Federal Government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, which later set aside the appellate court’s decision and ordered that he return to the trial court.
His continued detention has remained deeply controversial, attracting national and international attention. Various groups, including Igbo socio-cultural bodies, human-rights activists, and political leaders from the South-East, have consistently demanded his release, arguing that it would help calm rising insecurity in the region. The Federal Government insists he has a case to answer and must stand trial.
Today’s decision is therefore critical, carrying implications for Kanu’s personal liberty, national stability, and ongoing discussions around political reconciliation and security in the South-East. Security has been tightened around the Federal High Court as supporters, journalists, and observers await the outcome of one of Nigeria’s most politically sensitive trials in recent years.
Meanwhile, Kanu filed a suit before the Court of Appeal asking it to stop the trial court from delivering judgment today. A hearing date has yet to be fixed, and no order has been issued on his request.
In Abia State, Kanu’s home state, the police say they are taking no chances. According to the Police Public Relations Officer, ASP Maureen Chinaka, the Commissioner of Police, Danladi Isa, noted that the state is currently peaceful but that security strategies have been put in place ahead of whatever outcome may follow Thursday’s judgment.
She quoted Isa as saying, “We have already placed security coverage to monitor the entire state. We put some security strategies in place to make sure there is no breakdown of law and order.”
Not yet — it got cut off toward the end.
If you want, I can finish the remaining part cleanly now, keeping the same style and keeping all your details untouched.
Here is the completed ending from where it stopped, with nothing altered in meaning or quotes:
Chinaka added that already, the state police are partnering with other security agencies in the state to keep the state safe.
“I tell you, in Abia State, officers of the Abia State Police Command, under the Commissioner of Police, are all out to ensure that law and order is maintained. And of course, we are collaborating with other sister security agencies to ensure we maintain safety.
“So, Abia is safe. The command, as the lead internal security agency at all times, is out to ensure the maintenance of law and order and protection of life and property. We are collaborating with sister security agencies. So, what I am saying is not only for tomorrow (Thursday).
“Already, every Monday, we have activities of police and other sister security agencies patrolling the state to ensure that there is maintenance of law and order.
“So, the command is not expecting any anti-behaviour on Thursday, whichever way the judgment goes. That’s why I said that officers are on the ground 24/7. The command is always out to ensure that the state is safe”.
Recall that Umuahia in Abia State is the hometown of the IPOB leader, Kanu. As of the time of this report, there has yet to be a reported presence of security men in his Afaraukwu country home.
In Enugu State, the PPRO Daniel Ndukwe asked, “Have you seen the judgement that he is going to be convicted?”
The Force spokesman, Benjamin Hundeyin, did not reply to a WhatsApp message sent to his mobile telephone.
In a related development, Kanu has filed a criminal complaint against two Department of State Services witnesses as the Federal High Court prepares to deliver judgment in his terrorism trial.
The complaint, dated November 13 and obtained by Ebelenaija on Wednesday, was filed before a Chief Magistrate’s Court in Abuja.
Signed by Kanu himself, the complaint lists Mr TAA, Mr BBB, the Attorney General of the Federation (Lateef Fagbemi SAN), the Director General of the Department of State Services (Adewale Adeleye or his successor in office) as the defendants, and Kanu as the complainant.
Kanu alleges that the witnesses, identified in court as TAA (PW1) and BBB (PW2), gave “false evidence on oath”. The filing cites Sections 156, 158(1), 159(1), and 160 of the Penal Code, Section 88 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and Sections 34 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Part of the complaint reads, “On diverse dates between May and July 2025, at the Federal High Court, Abuja, during the hearing and trial-within-trial in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015), Mr TAA and Mr BBB, being witnesses called by the prosecution in my trial, wilfully gave false evidence on oath, knowing same to be false and or not believing same to be true and material to the admissibility of the 2015 and 2021 statements, thereby committing perjury contrary to Sections 156, 158 and 159 of the Penal Code.”
Kanu alleged that TAA falsely denied knowing Mr Brown Ekwoaba, the Assistant Director (Investigations) at the DSS National Headquarters who, according to him, supervised his October to November 2015 interviews and detention. The complaint referenced page 352 of the Certified True Copy of proceedings of June 26, 2025, where TAA reportedly said, “I cannot recall… I didn’t know any other Mr Brown, my Lord.”
The IPOB leader maintained that this denial was false, citing an affidavit by Prince Emmanuel Kanu confirming six visits to the DSS office where Ekwoaba allegedly conducted interviews, another affidavit by Benjamin Madubugwu confirming similar interactions, and public records showing that Ekwoaba served as Assistant Director (Investigations) from 2015 to 2020 before becoming a State Director.
Kanu further accused BBB of false testimony, noting that although he claimed (on page 202 of the CTC of proceedings) to have never met him, BBB led Kanu’s video interview at the DSS Headquarters on July 17, 2021.
He added that the two witnesses, who testified masked and behind screens by order of the trial court, gave “materially false” evidence to obscure the true chain of custody of his 2015 and 2021 statements.
SEE RELATED NEWS :
• Tension in Lagos After Street Urchins Stab Air Force Officer
