From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20, 2025, for judgement in the terrorism trial of the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
Justice James Omotosho announced the date on Friday, after Kanu failed to open his defence despite being granted six days by the court to present his case. The judge ruled that the opportunity given to Kanu to defend himself satisfied the requirements of a fair hearing under the Nigerian Constitution.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho stated that the court had been lenient in granting several adjournments and extensions in the interest of justice, but could not allow further delays. He emphasised that the administration of justice must balance the rights of the defendant with the need to ensure that trials do not become indefinite.
“The defendant was afforded ample time to conduct his defence. Having failed to utilise it, he cannot now claim that his right to a fair hearing was breached”, Justice Omotosho said, before adjourning for judgement.
However, Kanu, in a fresh application challenging the continuation of the trial, on Friday, argued that the offence of terrorism could no longer stand in law, claiming that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act under which he was charged had been repealed by recent legislative amendments.
He insisted that the repeal of the previous law meant that the charges against Kanu had no legal foundation. They urged the court to strike out the case for want of jurisdiction and order his immediate release from detention.
Kanu, who has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since his re-arrest and extradition from Kenya in 2021, told the court he should be set free as there was “no valid law or offence known to Nigerian statutes” under which he could be tried.
The Federal Government, however, countered the argument, maintaining that the amended law still recognises terrorism as an offence and that Kanu’s actions, including alleged incitement and support for violent secessionist activities, fall squarely within its scope. Government lawyers urged the court to dismiss the defence motion as a “ploy to frustrate proceedings.”
