Kanu Moves to Halt Judgment in Terrorism Trial, Cites Repealed Law, others

“IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu has filed a motion asking the Federal High Court in Abuja to suspend judgment in his terrorism trial, citing constitutional breaches and reliance on a repealed law. He claims the proceedings are void and without jurisdiction.”

Abuja, Nigeria – The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to halt the delivery of judgment in his terrorism trial scheduled for November 20.

In the motion, dated and filed on November 10, and personally signed by Kanu, he urged Justice James Omotosho to suspend judgment, arguing that the proceedings were conducted “under a repealed and non-existent law.”

Kanu, who recently disengaged his legal team led by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), maintained that the ongoing trial contravenes Supreme Court directives and Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

According to him, his prosecution under the now-repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2013, violates Sections 1(3), 36(1–12), and 42 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Kanu argued that the trial court is “constitutionally bound to give effect to the Supreme Court’s finding” that Count 15 (now Count 7) “does not exist in law,” insisting that any failure to do so renders subsequent proceedings null and void.

He further contended that the court’s refusal to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law, contrary to Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011, invalidates all proceedings anchored on that statute.

Additionally, Kanu invoked Section 76(1)(a)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, arguing that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to try him without proof that the alleged offences are recognized under Kenyan law, or that there was a valid extradition order from a Kenyan court.

Kanu also challenged the plea purportedly taken on March 29, 2023, under what he described as a repealed statute, saying it violates Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. He maintained that such a plea was “void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction.”

According to him, the alleged use of forged material in the proceedings amounted to a constructive denial of fair hearing under Section 36(6) of the Constitution, urging the court to set aside all rulings and proceedings presided over by Justice Omotosho for lack of jurisdiction and breach of constitutional supremacy.

Representing himself after dismissing his lawyers, Kanu said he was “misled into pleading under a non-existent law,” in breach of Section 220 of the ACJA.

“It is in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to arrest judgment ex debito justitiae,” Kanu stated in his motion.

Among his prayers is an order to suspend the delivery of judgment and a declaration that the failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law, contrary to the Evidence Act, vitiates all steps taken under it.

Kanu is facing seven counts of terrorism, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, filed by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The prosecution alleges that Kanu, who has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since 2021, led a separatist movement seeking the secession of the South-East, parts of the South-South, and some areas in Kogi and Benue States from Nigeria.

He was also accused of inciting violence and killings through radio broadcasts and illegally importing a transmitter into the country.

Kanu, however, pleaded not guilty to all charges.

While the prosecution has closed its case after calling five witnesses, Kanu initially listed 23 witnesses for his defence but later withdrew the list, insisting he would not “defend a charge founded on a law that no longer exists.”

At the last sitting, after Kanu failed to open his defence despite being granted six days to do so, Justice Omotosho fixed a date for judgment, having given him multiple opportunities to present his case.