, enters a decisive phase today (Thursday)){kind=link}
The long-running trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), enters a decisive phase today (Thursday) as the Federal High Court in Abuja prepares to deliver judgment in his battle against the Federal Government.
Justice James Omotosho is expected to rule on a stack of applications that have shaped the case for months.
At the heart of the matter is Kanu’s bid to nullify the terrorism charges against him and secure his release, which he argues is warranted due to what he calls unlawful detention and repeated violations of his fundamental rights.
Kanu has remained in the custody of the Department of State Services since June 2021 following his controversial return from Kenya, a move his legal team continues to describe as “extraordinary rendition.”
He is currently facing seven terrorism-related counts, including alleged incitement, operation of an unlawful organisation, and conduct deemed dangerous to national security. He maintains that the accusations are politically driven and unsupported by evidence.
In a recent application, the detained IPOB leader contended that the law under which he is being prosecuted, the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, has been repealed.
His lawyers insist that the charges “no longer exist in the eyes of the law,” urging the court to strike them out entirely.
His motion also challenged the validity of the “not guilty” plea entered on his behalf.
Kanu argued that the plea was recorded under false pretences and allegedly contradicted a previous ruling of the Supreme Court.
Beyond seeking to void all proceedings that followed the plea, he asked the court to order his immediate release.
However, the case took another turn when Justice Omotosho faulted Kanu for refusing to open his defence despite being given six days to do so after the prosecution closed its case on June 19, 2025.
According to the judge, the court granted multiple adjournments, many at the request of the defence, to allow cross-examination of witnesses.
“The defendant has not demonstrated seriousness in the proceedings,” the judge remarked, recalling his personal appeal to Kanu “to present his defence and engage counsel.”
He noted that Kanu initially agreed to defend himself after losing his no-case submission but later refused, claiming the trial lacked legitimacy.
Citing established Supreme Court decisions, Justice Omotosho said a defendant who declines an opportunity to be heard cannot later claim to have been denied justice.
By failing to open his defence, he ruled, Kanu effectively waived that right, clearing the way for the court to proceed to judgment.
Although the case originally commenced in 2015, it has been fraught with adjournments, appeals and counter-motions from both sides.
After being reassigned to Justice Omotosho earlier this year, it received expedited hearing. The prosecution called five witnesses and tendered several exhibits before resting its case.
A senior legal analyst in Abuja, speaking on the tense atmosphere around the judgment, said: “This is one of the most closely watched decisions in recent years.
Whatever the court decides today will shape not only Kanu’s future but also the broader national conversation around security, rights, and the limits of state power.”
As the court prepares to deliver its ruling, the country waits to see whether Kanu will regain his freedom or continue to face trial on terrorism-related allegations.