Tag: Kanu

 

 

BY ERIC IFERE

We have not heard the last about Nnamdi Kanu’s trial, conviction, and sentencing, which underscore the importance of procedural correctness and proper legal representation.

The case raises questions about whether justice was served correctly and if any procedural errors could invalidate the trial or conviction.

It also prompts an analysis of whether Kanu’s act of dismissing his lawyers was a trap or a procedural pitfall for the Court.

Under Nigerian law, Section 36 of the Constitution calls for a fair hearing and legal representation in criminal trials. While specific provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 explicitly mandate legal representation in capital offence trials to guarantee a fair hearing, no party can waive this requirement, underscoring its critical role in ensuring justice and procedural integrity.

Let’s examine what Nigerian law stipulates for capital offence trials, focusing on the legal procedures that must be followed and their implications for the fairness and validity of the case, especially regarding legal representation and procedural safeguards. This analysis helps us understand the procedural standards Kanu’s trial should meet and highlights the importance of adherence to legal procedures.

Under Nigerian law, Section 267(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 clarifies that, while defendants can generally conduct their cases in person, this right does not extend to capital offences or cases involving life imprisonment. This procedural safeguard is critical for the fairness and validity of such trials, and no party can waive it.

Section 267(4) Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015: explicitly mandates that the Court shall ensure that counsel in capital offence cases represents the defendant.
Section 349(6) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 further reinforces this, stating that a defendant charged with a capital offence shall not be allowed to represent or defend themselves, even if they wish to do so. The Court must inform the defendant of the risks involved and record this information, but legal counsel must still be provided. The Court will assign a lawyer to the defendant if the defendant does not have one, ensuring that the trial is not voided for lack of representation and underscoring the importance of legal safeguards in capital cases.

Failure to provide mandatory legal representation from arraignment through the end of the trial may be grounds for setting aside the judgment, underscoring the Court’s obligation to ensure procedural
compliance. The Court’s duty to assign a lawyer when the defendant lacks one is essential to prevent the trial from being voided for lack of proper representation.

Looking at the law’s provisions and applying them to Nnamdi Kanu’s trial, conviction, and sentencing, I wonder how much compliance was achieved. The drama has not ended, and we await more scenes. Fasten your seatbelt, relax, and follow the unfolding legal battle.

 

(Eric Ifere, Solicitor of England & Wales
Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.)

 

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, sentenced Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to life imprisonment after he was found guilty of the terrorism offences.

Justice James Omotosho, who earlier convicted Kanu in all the seven counts preferred against him, held that the Federal Government had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against Kanu in the terrorism offences.

Justice Omotosho consequently sentenced the IPOB leader to life imprisonment in counts one, four, five and six, instead of death sentence penalty.

According to the judge, life is sacred to God.

The judge, who sentence Kanu to a 20-year jail term in count three, committed him to three years imprisonment in count seven.

 

Details later

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja again begged Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to enter his defence in the ongoing alleged terrorism offences.

Justice James Omotosho, who told Kanu the implication of his continuous refusal to open his defence on Tuesday, urged him to consult legal experts for appropriate guidance.

The development occurred following the IPOB ‘s insistence that there was no valid charge against him to enter defence.

Kanu restated that there is no law under which he is being trial in the ongoing alleged terrorism offences.

The defendant, who appeared for himself, told Justice Omotosho shortly when the case was called for him to open his defence.

The IPOB leader argued that the law, under which he is being tried, is a repealed law.

He said the Supreme Court’s directive, made through Justice Lawal Garba, had not been given effect in the instant case.

He said there was no part in the ruling of the court on his no-case submission that mentioned the repealed law of the terrorism act.

He said the apex court said that the criminal code, under which he is being tried, does not exist.

“My lord, the very charge upon which the entire ruling was based, does not exist.

“Even as I came to this court today, there is no charge against me,” he said.

The prosecution lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, informed the court that on Friday, they were served with Kanu’s motion on notice, which the senior lawyer referred to as “a piece of paper.”

“My lord, on Friday, we were served with a piece of paper titled motion on notice and final address of the defendant.

“What I was served is a piece of paper that carries no stamp of this court, no signature of revenue collector, etc,” he said.

He said an unsigned document is a worthless paper which does not have any efficacy in law according to the Supreme Court.

He, however, told the court that the prosecution had answered all the 10 points earlier raised by Kanu, including issues of the repealed law, extra-ordinary rendition, etc, in their final written address.

Awomolo said they were ready to adopt their final written address in order for the court to adjourn for judgment.

However, Justice Omotosho said he was inclined to grant Kanu an adjournment to consult legal experts on his need to enter his defence.

The judge told the IPOB leader that if the Supreme Court did not want him to face trial, the apex court would not have sent his file back to the court for retrial.

He said he was still presumed innocent despite the order to open his defence.

Justice Omotosho, who described Kanu as a layman, said he was inclined to grant him another opportunity in the interest of fair hearing.

The judge, however, threatened to foreclose his defence if he failed to enter a defence.

He said should Kanu fail to open his defence on Nov. 5, he would be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

The judge then adjourned the matter until Nov. 5 for Kanu to open his defence.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Omotosho had, on Oct. 27, adjourned till Nov. 4 for Kanu to either file his final written address or open his defence.

 

 

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), on Monday, abandoned his earlier plan to call witnesses in his defence.

Kanu, upon resumed hearing in his ongoing trial for alleged terrorism offences, told Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja that he perused the case file and come to the conclusion that he had no case to answer.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Omotosho had, on Friday, fixed today for Kanu to open his defence following his complaint that the case file was yet to be handed over to him.

The IPOB leader had, in a motion filed on Oct. 21, informed the court of his intention to call about 23 witnesses and applied for witness summons.

But when the case was called on Monday, Kanu said he had gone through the case file and had realised that there is no valid charge against him.

He argued that since he was convinced that there is no valid charge against him and that he was subjected to unlawful trial, there would no be need for him to conduct any defence.

Justice Omotosho then asked him to file a written address to that effect and serve the prosecution.

The judge advised him to consult experts in criminal law on the consequences of the option he had chosen.

The judge consequently adjourned the matter until Nov. 4, Nov. 5 and Nov. 6 for the adoption of the final written addresses based on the defendant’s position that evidence led so far and the charge had not established any case against him or for the defendant to enter his defence.

Details shortly

 

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), on Friday, failed to open his defence for the second time at the Federal High Court in Abuja in the alleged terrorism trial.

Kanu, who opted to defend himself, told Justice James Omotosho upon resumed hearing that his disengaged lawyers were yet to handover the case file to him.

“My lord, my counsel left the case yesterday and I have not received the file from them

“The few people that would have brought this were precluded from seeing me,” he said.

The IPOB leader then sought an adjournment to enable him prepared for his defence.

Although counsel for the Federal Government, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, did not oppose the application, the senior lawyer prayed the court to stand by the standing order which directed Kanu to defend himself within six days.

“I m aware that there is a standing order for the defendant to defend himself within dix days.

“The defendant wasted yesterday. This is the second day my lord. I urge your lordship to keep to the standing order,” Awomolo said.

Justice Omotosho, who begged Kanu to make judicious use of the opportunity offered to him in line with Section 36 of the constitution to defend himself, said the defendant cannot be enforced to do so if he decided to waive the right.

The judge adjourned the matter until Monday for Kanu to open his defence.

 

 

 

 

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) says his witnesses will be coming from all parts of the world, including Ethiopia, Kenya and the United States (U.S).

Kanu, who opted to defend himself in the ongoing alleged terrorism trial preferred against him by the Federal Government, told Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court on Friday in Abuja.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, in a motion filed on Oct. 21, listed the names of prominent Nigerians and foreigners he intended to call as witnesses to defend himself.

Kanu, in the application he personally signed, informed the court of his plan to call a total of 23 witnesses divided into two categories.

The first category, he said, would be those he called “ordinary but material witnesses.”

He further informed the court that his second category of witnesses would be “vital and compellable” and shall be “summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.”

He prayed the court that, in view of the number of witnesses he intended to call, the court should consider granting a 90-day timeframe to enable him conclude his defence.

The leader of the IPOB, however, disengaged his legal team led by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice on Thursday.

He told the court he was ready to defend himself.

When the case was called on Friday, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, represented the FG and Kanu, who spoke from the dock, announced appearance for himself.

“I am Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. I stand for myself,” he said.

Awomolo then told the court that the case was scheduled for defence and that they were ready to proceed.

But Kanu said he was not prepared to commence his defence.

He told the court that his disengaged lawyers were yet to handover the case file to him.

“My lord, my counsel left the case yesterday and I have not received the file from them.

“The few people that would have brought this were precluded from seeing me,” he said.

The IPOB leader then urged the court to adourn the matter to enable him do the needful.

Kanu also told the court that the three-day weekly visit to him at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility would no longer be enough for him to prepare his defence, considering the number of his witnesses, who would be coming across the world.

When Justice Omotosho asked him what were the visiting days and time, he said: “Two hours every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.”

According to Kanu, that is not enough because I have about 23 witnesses that will be coming all parts of the world, from Ethiopia, Kenya, U.S.

“I will want the court to make an order so that these people can have access to me,” he said.

When the judge asked him if these people were part of the witnesses he listed in the motion he filed, he said: “They are part of the witnesses listed my lord.”

Responding Adegboyega said Kanu had all the time to defend himself since his no-case submission application failed.

Besides, the senior lawyer said the court bailiff had been trying to serve the subpoenaed witnesses Kanu listed in his application the summons to appear in court.

He said contrary to Kanu’s submission, he was not aware that “some of the witnesses are coming from parts of the world.”

Awomolo, who did not oppose Kanu’s request for adjournment, prayed the court not to vacate the standing order which directed Kanu to defend himself within six days.

“I am aware that there is a standing order for the defendant to defend himself within dix days.

“The defendant wasted yesterday. This is the second day my lord. I urge your lordship to keep to the standing order,” Awomolo said.

Justice Omotosho said he was surprised with Kanu’s statement that his lawyer had yet to handover the case file, especially when Chief Kanu Agabi was involved.

“I am surprised that Chief Agabi will keep the file to himself, having announced yesterday that the defendant will conduct the trial himself and told the counsel to leave,” he said.

The judge, however, observed that the issue raised on Thursday was not about the case file.

“The only issue raised was that of the jurisdiction which I declined and said it should be raised in final written address,” he said.

The judge said parties in the case agreed when an accelerated hearing was granted by the court.

He said the prosecution was even threatened that if they refused to close their case within stipulated time, their case would be foreclosed.

“However, in the interest of justice and fair hearing, having raised the issue of file this morning, though strange that Agabi will not release the file, I will grant an adjournment for the file to be given to the defendant,” Justice Omotosho said.

The judge also granted the application by Kanu that his counsel should have access to him on non-working days for the purpose of the trial.

“This is hereby granted. The DSS should give him access on Saturday and Monday to have access to his counsel,” the judge said.

Justice Omotosho held that in as much as opportunity would be given to Kanu, “I also repeat that the right in Section 36 of the constitution is given to a defendant to defend himself.

“It is not that a defendant must be compelled to make use of that right.

“This court is here to do justice and I will do justice to everybody.

“The impression created when I assumed this trial was that there was delay.”

The judge said against this impression, he created two sessions; morning and afternoon, in the court to ensure that Kanu’s matter was given expeditious hearing.

Besides, he said it was to ensure that other matters before him too did not suffer undue delay.

“I will beg the defendant in the name of Almighty God to let’s make use of this opportunity.

“Not making use of this opportunity will deny some other people their trial; their trial will suffer.

“We have Chinese people here in this court this morning who are here for trial,” he said.

Besides, another defendant, a Zimbabwean lady, who had been in detention because she could not perfect her bail, was asked to stand up for everyone to know that there were other cases in court.

“I pray that we use the opportunity.

“The court will not refrain from invoking appropriate provisions of the law,” Justice Omotosho said.

The judge recalled that on Oct..22, the court did not sit until 2pm because the court was vacated from 9am to allow Kanu and his legal team have a private consultation in line with earlier order.

“I moved some matters to 2pm and I did not leave here until 7pm that day,” he added.

Justice Omotosho said, however, on Oct. 23 when Kanu was to open his defence, nothing happened.

According to him, with time, the court will invoke appropriate provisions.

He also said that though the allegation that the DSS operatives were eavesdropping was not substantiated, he decided to grant the order for them to meet in his court.

“If I continue this way, other matters will suffer,” the judge said.

Justice Omotosho, therefore, ordered the DSS to provide another facility for the IPOB leader and his counsel to meet.

“I will not vacate this court for any pre-trial again because this opportunity was not used,” he held.

The judge then adjourned the .matter until Oct. 27 for Kanu to open his defence.

Meanwhile, shortly after the adjournment, Kanu indicated interest to speak but Justice Omotosho ordered that another case be called.

 

Mr Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has listed former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, as his witness in his ongoing alleged terrorism trial.

Kanu, in a fresh motion he personally signed and filed before Justice Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, assured that he was ready to begin his defence as ordered by the court.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the motion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 and dated Oct. 20, was filed Oct. 21.

The application was titled: “Notice of Number and Names of Witnesses to be Called by the Defendant and Request for Witness Summons/Subpoena and the Variation of the Time Within Which to Defend the Counts/Charges against the Defendant.”

The IPOB leader said the motion was “pursuant to the order of this honourable court made on the 16th day of October 2015, directing the defendant to commence his defence on the 24th day of October 2025.”

Kanu informed the court of his plan to call a total of 23 witnesses divided into two categories.

The first category, he said, would be those he called “ordinary but material witnesses.”

He further informed the court that his second category of witnesses would be “vital and compellable” and shall be “summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.”

He prayed the court that, in view of the number of witnesses he intends to call, the court should consider granting a 90-day timeframe to enable him conclude his defence.

He told the court that he would “testify on his own behalf, providing a sworn account of the facts, denying the allegations, and explaining the political context of his statements and actions.”

Among those Kanu listed as “compellable witnesses” are the Minister of FCT, Nyesom Wike; a former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd); former Chief of Army Staff, Gen Tukur Buratai (rtd), Gov. Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State and Gov. Hope Uzodinma of Imo.

Others are Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; the immediate-past Governor of Abia, Okezie Ikpeazu; the immediate-past Director General (DG), National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Ahmed Rufai Abubakar; former DG of the State Security Service, Yusuf Bichi, and several witnesses whose identities he didn’t reveal.

Kanu, in the motion, promised to “provide the sworn statements of all voluntary witnesses to this honourable court, and to notify the prosecution within a reasonable time.”

He assured that “no precious time of the honourable court would be delayed.”

Besides, Kanu assured that “it would interest the honourable court and the general public that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to have been done.”

The latest motion came after the detained IPOB leader had, on Thursday, filed a motion of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to continue with his trial.

He had filed the objection the same day a team of medical experts enpanelled by the court to determine his health status, turned in a report that he was medically fit to stand trial.

Meanwhile, a magistrate court in Abuja, on Tuesday, ordered the remand of Kanu’s special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, and 12 others who were arrested during the protest organised by Omoyele Sowore on Monday against the IPOB leader’s continued trial and detention.

The police charged the 13 persons with various offences, including criminal conspiracy, disobedience of a lawful order, inciting disturbance, and disturbance of public peace, in contravention of Sections 152, 114, and 113 of the Penal Code Law.

The 13 defendants named in two separate first information reports (FIRs) are Ejimakor, Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel; Joshua Emmanuel; Wilson Anyalewechi; Okere Nnamdi; Clinton Chimeneze; Gabriel Joshua; Isiaka Husseini; Onyekachi Ferdinand; Amadi Prince; Edison Ojisom; Godwill Obioma; and Chima Onuchukwu.

The magistrate ordered that the defendants be remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre pending their arraignment on Oct. 24.

 

Hearing in the police suit against Omoyele Sowore and other conveners of #FreeNnamdiKanuNow protest, on Monday, suffered set back as court activities at the Federal High Court in Abuja came to a halt.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that as at 9:30am when the reporter got access into the premises of the high-rise building that houses no fewer than 13 courts, all the courtrooms were under lock and key.

Although very few court workers, lawyers, litigants and private guards of the court were seeing in the premises, no judge was sighted.

(Court 5, where Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja was scheduled to hear the police suit against Mr Omoyele Sowore and others over the planned #FreeNnamdiKanuNow protest taking place today, Monday in Abuja.)

 

There were heavy security deployments with water cannons in and around the intersection between Gana Street and Shehu Shagari Way by Nicon Hilton Hotel, the popular NITEL Junction at Wuse 2, Federal Secretariat environs, National Assembly Junction, to Asokoro District leading into Presidential Villa.

Movement of vehicles was disallowed and many pedestrians were denied walking through the restricted areas, while police fired tear gas in some places.

NAN earlier reported that Justice Mohammed Umar had, on Friday, fixed today for the respondents in the ex-parte motion filed by the police, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), to show cause why the interim order made by the court should be vacated.

Justice Umar had restrained Mr Sowore, the 1st respondent, and others from protesting in some sensitive areas in Abuja, including the Aso Rock Villa, today for the release of detained Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

The judge also barred the protesters from any where close to the villa, National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square and Shehu Shagari Way, pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

Others named in the interim order include Sahara Reporters Ltd, Sahara Reporters’ Media Foundation, Take It Back Movement (TIB), for the Transformation of Nigeria Or Any Form of Organisation or Any Other Person(s) Acting Either Express or Implied Instruction or Any Other Organisation or Group With the Like Intention; and Unknown Persons as 2nd to 5th respondents respectively.

The judge had granted the ex-parte motion moved by the police lawyer, Wisdom Madaki, on behalf of FRN on Friday.

The judge also made an order of abridgement of time “within which the respondents will respond to the application on notice to cause the ex-parte order be set aside on Monday, the 20th of October, 2025 at 9.00am.”

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until Oct. 20 for hearing of the motion on notice.

The ex-parte motion was marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2202/2025.

In the affidavit in support of the ex-parte motion deposed to by Bassey Ibithan, a police officer attached to Directorate of Legal Services, Force Headquarters, Abuja, the officer averred that if not granted, the protest might threaten the national security.

NAN reports that Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, had planned to organised the protest for the release of Kanu.

Sowore, the 2019 and 2023 presidential candidate of African Action Congress (ACC), had begun mobilisation for what he called a planned peaceful protest against Kanu’s detention.

However, there have also been ongoing calls for political solution to Kanu’s trial who is facing alleged terrorism offence at the Federal High Court before Justice James Omotosho.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained Mr Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, and others from protesting in some areas in Abuja, including the Aso Rock Villa, on Monday for the release of detained Nnamdi Kanu.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the court also barred the protesters from any where close to the villa, National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square and Shehu Shagari Way, pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

Justice Mohammed Umar, on Friday, granted the ex-parte motion moved by the police lawyer, Wisdom Madaki, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), contrary to the earlier media reports in circulation.

The certified true copy of the enrolled order, signed by the court Registrar, Mr Kasim Muazu, and the presiding judge, Justice Umar, was made available to NAN on Saturday in Abuja.

The judge also made an order of abridgement of time “within which the respondents will respond to the application on notice to cause the ex-parte order be set aside on Monday, the 20th of October, 2025 at 9.00am.”

This was also contrary to some media reports that Justice Umar adjourned the matter until Oct. 21 for the parties to appear in court.

“The respondents are hereby restrained in the interim from protesting in the following Areas; Aso Rock Villa, or anywhere close to Villa, National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square and on Shehu Shagari way pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

“The court hereby abridged time within which the respondents will respond to the application on notice to cause this ex-parte order be set aside on Monday, the 20th of October, 2025 at 9.00am.

“The order of this court together with the motion on notice be served on the respondents today, Friday, the 17th day of October, 2025,” the judge ordered.

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until Oct. 20 for hearing of the motion on notice.

“ISSUED AT ABUJA under the Hand of the Presiding Judge, Honourable Justice M. G. Umar, and the Seal of the Court this 17th day of October, 2025,” the enrolled order read.

NAN reports that in the ex-parte motion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2202/2025, the police, on behalf of FRN, sued five respondents.

They are Omoyele Sowore, Sahara Reporters Ltd, Sahara Reporters’ Media Foundation, Take It Back Movement (TIB), for the Transformation of Nigeria Or Any Form of Organisation or Any Other Person(s) Acting Either Express or Implied Instruction or Any Other Organisation or Group With the Like Intention; and Unknown Persons as 1st to 5th respondents respectively.

The motion dated and filed on Oct. 16 sought one relief.

“An order of this honourable court restraining or ban protesters from protesting in the following areas, Aso Rock Villa or anywhere close to Villa, National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square and Shehu Shagari way.

“And for such further orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”

The affidavit in support of the ex-parte motion was deposed to by Bassey Ibithan, a police officer attached to Directorate of Legal Services, Force Headquarters, Abuja.

NAN reports that Mr Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, had planned to organised the protest for the release of Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

Sowore, the 2019 and 2023 presidential candidate of African Action Congress (ACC), had begun mobilisation for what he called a planned peaceful protest against the detention Kanu.

However, there have also been ongoing calls for political solution to Kanu’s trial who is facing alleged terrorism offence at the Federal High Court before Justice James Omotosho.