By Correspondent in Abuja.
The Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a motion seeking to stop the Federal High Court in Abuja from delivering judgment in his trial for alleged terrorism offences scheduled for November 20.
Our correspondent recalls that Justice James Omotosho had, on November 7, fixed the date for judgment after Kanu’s defence was foreclosed due to his refusal to enter defence under what he described as a repealed law.
In the motion on notice marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, and personally filed by Kanu, the IPOB leader is seeking seven reliefs, including an order to arrest the judgment.
The application, dated and filed on November 10, prays the court to halt the judgment, which he said was being conducted under a repealed and non-existent statute and in defiance of the Supreme Court’s directive.
Kanu argued that, by virtue of Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the trial court was bound to give effect to the Supreme Court’s finding that Count 15 (now Count 7) “does not exist in law,” adding that failure to do so rendered all subsequent proceedings null and void.
He also contended that the court’s failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, as required by Section 122 of the Evidence Act, vitiated the entire proceedings.
According to him, under Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to try him without proof that the alleged conduct constituted an offence under Kenyan law or had been validated by a Kenyan court through an extradition order.
Kanu further sought a declaration that the plea purportedly taken on March 29, 2025, under a repealed law, violated Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and was therefore void.
He also claimed that the use of “forged materials” in the process amounted to a constructive denial of his right to a fair hearing under Section 36(6) of the Constitution.
Kanu, therefore, asked the court to set aside all proceedings and orders made by Justice Omotosho in the case for want of jurisdiction and violation of constitutional supremacy.
Having disengaged his lawyers, Kanu has chosen to represent himself, maintaining that the charges against him were based on repealed laws and, therefore, invalid.
He further alleged that his trial was politically motivated and influenced by British authorities, whom he accused of conspiring to secure his conviction.
However, Justice Omotosho dismissed the claim, stating that he had no connection with the British authorities and was not the judge involved in Kanu’s earlier proceedings.
The judge held that Kanu had exhausted the six days allocated to him to conduct his defence and, by refusing to do so, had waived his right to fair hearing.
“This court has given the defendant the opportunity required under Section 36 of the Constitution, and I will not allow this to continue. It is based on this that I say, without hesitation, that the defendant has waived his right,” Justice Omotosho said, before adjourning the matter till November 20 for judgment.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
