The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled that Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), must proceed to present his defence in the terrorism case filed against him by the federal government. The decision, delivered on Friday by Justice James Omotosho, represents a pivotal moment in the long-running trial that has gripped Nigeria’s political and judicial landscape.
Justice Omotosho held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Kanu, thereby satisfying the threshold required to compel him to answer the allegations. “Having considered the evidence brought forward, the prosecution has raised sufficient issues requiring the defendant’s response,” the court ruled, effectively dismissing arguments advanced by Kanu’s legal team that the charges lacked direct linkage to him.
The implication of the ruling is that Kanu, who has been held in detention since his controversial extradition from Kenya in 2021, must now take the witness stand or call witnesses in his defence. His lawyers had argued that the case was politically motivated and based on circumstantial evidence, but the court determined that the prosecution’s submissions—including materials tied to his broadcasts on Radio Biafra and alleged leadership role in IPOB—were weighty enough to warrant a formal defence.
The IPOB leader is facing multiple counts, including terrorism, incitement, and membership of an outlawed organisation. The federal government accuses him of using his broadcasts to encourage violence, destabilize the South-East region, and promote secessionist activities. IPOB, banned in 2017, has been linked by authorities to violent clashes and attacks on security agencies, though the group and its supporters deny these allegations, insisting their movement is non-violent and rooted in self-determination.
Friday’s ruling intensifies a legal battle that has drawn wide attention both at home and abroad. Human rights groups and international observers continue to scrutinize the proceedings, warning of potential human rights violations. Supporters of Kanu insist he is being unfairly targeted for his political beliefs and his campaign for an independent Biafra, while the government maintains that the charges are essential to preserving Nigeria’s territorial integrity and national security.
Legal analysts note that the decision marks a significant turning point in the proceedings. With the prosecution having closed its case, attention will now shift to how Kanu and his legal team intend to mount their defence. This stage of the trial could determine not only his personal fate but also the broader trajectory of separatist movements in Nigeria.
The next adjourned date will see the formal opening of the defence, at which point Kanu may either testify personally or rely on other witnesses and evidence to challenge the allegations. The proceedings are expected to be closely monitored, with implications for Nigeria’s judiciary, political stability, and international reputation.
