The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday foreclosed Nnamdi Kanu’s defence and adjourned the case until 20 November for judgment in the alleged terrorism charges brought against him by the federal government.
Justice James Omotosho ruled that Kanu, having used up the six days allocated to him to present his defence, had waived his right to do so. The judge noted that he would have allowed an extension had Kanu chosen to proceed.
> “This court has given opportunity to the defendant under Section 36 of the Constitution. Having failed to utilise the chance, he cannot claim denial of the right to a fair hearing,” Justice Omotosho stated.
The judge reviewed the history of the trial, highlighting that Kanu had always been represented by lawyers, even after sacking some and appointing others as consultants. The court had also granted accelerated hearing to expedite the trial, though Kanu’s legal team requested multiple adjournments.
Justice Omotosho compared the situation to a Biblical allegory, noting that just as Adam was given the chance to explain his actions, Kanu was given ample opportunity to open his defence. The judge emphasized that while the right to a fair hearing is constitutional, Kanu voluntarily chose not to exercise it.
Earlier on Friday, Kanu informed the court he could not proceed because he wanted to file a fresh motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction. After filing, Kanu argued that the charges against him were based on repealed laws, specifically the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45 LFN 2004, rendering the trial a nullity.
He also alleged a pre-determined trial influenced by the UK government, claims which Justice Omotosho rejected, stating he had no connection with foreign authorities. Kanu requested the court to strike out the charge and order his release, while commending the judge for fairness in proceedings.
Prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo argued that the motion could serve as Kanu’s defence and relied on previous records showing Kanu’s legal representation and engagement throughout the trial. The court also noted Kanu’s initial plea of “not guilty” was valid and properly recorded.
Kanu’s motion sought five reliefs, including:
Expunging his plea of “not guilty” entered under alleged deception.
Setting aside proceedings based on the defective plea.
Declaring the seven-count charge invalid as it relied on repealed statutes.
Striking out the charge for lack of jurisdiction.
Directing his immediate release from custody.
Kanu argued the charges violated Sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution, claiming he had been in custody since June 2021 without a valid charge.
The court adjourned the matter to 20 November for judgment, with the motions challenging jurisdiction to be considered at that time.
