Nnamdi Kanu Urges Federal High Court to Postpone November 20 Judgment in Terrorism Case

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally requested the Federal High Court in Abuja to suspend the scheduled November 20 judgment in his terrorism trial. In a motion personally signed and filed on November 10, Kanu argued that the prosecution against him is invalid, grounded on repealed laws, and violates constitutional provisions.

Kanu faces seven counts of terrorism charges (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015) related to allegations that he led a separatist campaign aimed at seceding the South-East, parts of the South-South, and certain areas in Kogi and Benue states from Nigeria. He is accused of inciting violence through broadcasts transmitted nationwide and illegally importing a radio transmitter. He has pleaded not guilty.

Initially, Kanu named 23 witnesses for his defense but retracted this list, maintaining he would not defend a charge he described as legally baseless. Following his failure to open his defense despite multiple opportunities, Justice James Omotosho proceeded to set November 20 as the date for judgment.

In his fresh motion, Kanu contended that his trial under the now-repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013 contradicts multiple sections of the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. He argued the court lacks jurisdiction since the relevant law no longer exists, referencing the Supreme Court’s directives and Section 287(1) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, Kanu sought a declaration that Count 7 (formerly Count 15) “does not exist in law” and that proceeding without addressing this renders the trial null and void. He criticized the court’s refusal to acknowledge the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, citing Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, which requires judicial notice of repealed laws.

ADVERTISEMENT

He challenged the legitimacy of a plea entered on March 29, 2023, under the repealed statute as invalid and argued the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction without evidence that the alleged offenses constitute crimes under Kenyan law or a valid Kenyan extradition order, per Section 76(1)(a)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

Kanu, now representing himself after disengaging his legal team, asserted that he was misled into pleading guilty under a non-existent law, violating the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and requested the court to arrest judgment to uphold justice and constitutional supremacy.

The motion urges the court to halt judgment delivery and invalidate all proceedings derived from the repealed laws, emphasizing the constitutional and statutory basis for his defense.