Nnamdi Kanu Seeks Court Order to Stop Judgment in Terrorism Case

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking the court to suspend its scheduled judgment in his ongoing terrorism trial.

The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, was instituted by the Federal Government, accusing Kanu of leading a separatist movement aimed at the secession of parts of the South-East, South-South, and some communities in Kogi and Benue States. He was also accused of inciting violence through his broadcasts and illegally importing a radio transmitter into the country.

Although the Federal Government closed its case after presenting five witnesses, Kanu, who initially planned to call 23 witnesses, later withdrew the list and refused to open his defence. He had insisted that the charges brought against him were invalid and unknown to law. As a result, Justice James Omotosho fixed November 20, 2025, for judgment after granting him several opportunities to defend himself.

However, in a motion filed on November 10, which he personally signed, Kanu requested the court to halt the planned judgment. He argued that the trial was conducted under a repealed law — the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act of 2013 — which, according to him, violates several constitutional provisions, including Sections 1(3), 36, and 42 of the 1999 Constitution and Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Kanu maintained that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to continue with the matter since the charges were filed under a law that no longer exists. He also pointed out that the court did not take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Act, contrary to the Evidence Act of 2011.

He further argued that under the current Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the court cannot try him without proof that his alleged offences were recognized under Kenyan law, where he was arrested, or backed by a valid extradition order from a Kenyan court.

Kanu also challenged the validity of his plea, claiming that it was taken under a repealed statute, which rendered the proceedings null. He alleged that the trial process involved the use of irregular documents and therefore amounted to a denial of his right to a fair hearing.

Acting as his own counsel after dismissing his legal team, Kanu insisted that he was misled into taking a plea under an invalid law. He urged the court to set aside all previous rulings and proceedings in the case on grounds of constitutional breach and lack of jurisdiction.

He asked the court to suspend the delivery of judgment and declare all proceedings based on the repealed Terrorism Act void, stating that justice required the court to stop the process until his application is determined.