₦airaland Forum

By
Daily Trust
Wed, 5 Nov 2025 11:26:13 WAT
A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted detained self acclaimed leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, the last opportunity to enter defence in his ongoing terrorism trial.

Justice James Omotosho said on Wednesday that it was his duty as a judge in the case to accord the defendant sufficient opportunity to put in his defence.



However, the judge said failure to do so would lead to foreclosing the case

“We had adjourned till today for the defendant to put in his defence or be deemed closed. But, I am bound to give him another opportunity to put in his defence.”

“If he does not, I will deem him closed. I know that he is an economist and not a lawyer. I will give the last opportunity to the defendant to put in his defence, failure which he would be deemed closed,” said Justice Omotosho shortly before adjourning till November 7.


The prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, (SAN), had earlier said the court should foreclose Kanu, who failed to enter his defence having spent five out of the six days allotted him by the court to conduct his defence.

Awomolo noted that the court, on Tuesday, adjourned till Wednesday for Kanu to enter a defence in his trial or be deemed to have waived his right to do so.


He further noted that at the resumption of proceedings on Wednesday, Kanu still declined to open his defence as ordered by the court.

Awomolo urged the court to take note of the defendant’s position that he would not enter any defence because there is no valid charge against him.

He then prayed the court to foreclose the defendant and adjourn for judgment.


Earlier, Kanu, who represented himself, addressed the court from the dock.

He maintained his position that there is no valid charge against him to warrant his being called to enter a defence.

Meanwhile, following complaints by Awomolo, Justice Omotosho cautioned Kanu’s former lawyers in the case, who now refer to themselves as his consultants, to conduct themselves within the ethics of the legal profession.


The lawyers are: P. A. N Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Dr. Maxwell Opara and Prince Mandela Umegburu.

Awomolo had accused the lawyers of granting media interviews and making subtle posts on social media relating to the case.

The lawyers, who Kanu also confirmed as his consultants, were in court to witness Wednesday’s proceedings and introduced themselves as such.


https://dailytrust.com/just-in-court-gives-nnamdi-kanu-another-chance-to-open-defence/?noamp=available

“If he does not, I will deem him closed. I know that he is an economist and not a lawyer. I will give the last opportunity to the defendant to put in his defence, failure which he would be deemed closed,” said Justice Omotosho shortly before adjourning till November 7.

Arrogance won't help Kanu with his court predicament. If you are being charged mostly for reckless statements, being detained for years which already made you frustrated, representing yourself to speak will complicate your matter and you won't be able to control your emotions.

When my lords are in the chamber with their wigs on, they are demi god

Sentence him already, judge.

The court should fix a date for ruling on this matter and let us rest.

Confused court and judges

The yoruba judge think Kanu is someone he can threaten to commit errors,so that he can read already scripted judgement gave to him.


Kanu said he's ready for his defense, but part of constitution he broke be stated to him.




God bless Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.



Modified

Below 👇 is how it went down in court today.





PUBLIC BRIEFING NOTE

Adumbration by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in Court — 5 November 2025

Before: Hon. Justice James K. Omotosho (Federal High Court, Abuja)

1. Opening Proceedings

At the resumed hearing on 5 November 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, appearing in person, requested a brief five-minute recess in the Judge’s chambers, explaining that what he had to disclose might “embarrass the judiciary of Nigeria” if said in open court.
Justice Omotosho declined the request, directing that all submissions be made publicly.

Mazi Kanu then proceeded to seek to adopt his Motion on Notice and the accompanying Written Address, urging the Court to grant the reliefs sought.

Awomolo SAN objected and the court sided with Awomolo that Kanu should not talk about his filed Motion challenging the non-existence of any law charging the offences for which he is accused of. That the court will take it at the end of trial.

Kanu was visibly annoyed but he maintained a composed and firm demeanour throughout the session. Justice Omotosho was notably attentive and cautioned Kanu to keep his powder dry and to consult a criminal lawyer. Justice Omotosho flatly resisted entertaining arguments on the constitutional validity of the charge and jurisdiction at today's hearing. Kanu however proceeded to address the court on the issues why he would not enter his defence.

2. Core of the Oral Adumbration

Mazi Kanu’s address centered on the jurisdictional foundation of the case. His submission was that the entire trial is void ab initio because it rests on a repealed law, namely the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), which ceased to have legal existence following the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA 2022).

He argued that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of adjudication, not a procedural formality, citing the Supreme Court in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, which held that a court is competent only when the case comes before it under a valid, subsisting law.

3. Argument I — Jurisdiction Ceases When Enabling Statute Is Repealed

Kanu cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 734 at 753, where the Court held:

“When an enabling law is repealed, any right, privilege or proceeding founded upon it automatically collapses. It cannot be saved by judicial contrivance or implication.”

He emphasized that once a statute is repealed, any trial under it is ipso jure null and void, since the law ceases to confer jurisdiction.

4. Argument II — Section 36(12) and Section 1(3) of the Constitution

Kanu read out Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended):

“A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor prescribed in a written law.”

He submitted that a repealed statute is no longer a written law and therefore any charge predicated on it is a constitutional nullity.

Further, under Section 1(3) of the Constitution:

“If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

Thus, even a hypothetical saving clause cannot resuscitate a repealed criminal statute, as it would be void for inconsistency with Section 36(12).

5. Argument III — Judicial Precedent and Constitutional Supremacy

Kanu referenced Utah v. State (2016) LPELR-40077(SC) and Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 at 495-496, both of which reaffirmed that:

“Once the statute creating an offence is repealed, the jurisdiction of the trial court ceases immediately.”
“A court of law cannot breathe life into a statute that has ceased to exist.”

He argued that by proceeding under a repealed statute, the Court would effectively be enforcing a non-existent law, contrary to both constitutional and judicial authority.

6. Argument IV — Disobedience to the Supreme Court’s Directive

Kanu drew attention to the binding directive of the Supreme Court in its judgment on 15 December 2023 in FRN v. Kanu, where it held that the only potentially triable allegation (formerly Count 15) fell under the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), not the repealed terrorism provisions.

He accused the trial court of refusing to realign the charge under CEMA as directed, thereby violating stare decisis and judicial hierarchy.

“A trial court cannot pick and choose which portions of a Supreme Court judgment to obey,” he declared.

7. Argument V — The Supreme Court’s Own Error and Ongoing Correction

Mazi Kanu pointed out that even the Supreme Court itself may have erred per incuriam when it described the repealed TPAA 2013 as “extant” in its 2023 judgment. By then, TPAA 2013 had been repealed by TPPA 2022.

He revealed that he has taken legal steps to bring this error to the Supreme Court’s awareness, hence refrained from elaborating further in open court.
8. Argument VI — Cross-Border Jurisdiction and Double Criminality

Citing Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, Kanu argued that for any alleged conduct committed outside Nigeria (in this case, Kenya), jurisdiction can only arise upon proof that the conduct constitutes an offence under the law of that foreign country—a double criminality requirement.
He said the prosecution failed to produce any evidence from Kenya showing such criminalisation, rendering the jurisdictional gateway shut.

9. Argument VII — Unlawful Detention

Kanu invoked Section 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, stressing that detention without a valid, subsisting charge amounts to executive detention, not judicial detention.
He condemned such practice and asserted that his continued detention violates the African Charter domesticated in Nigeria.

10. Allegation of Bias and Perception of Partiality

Kanu expressed deep concern that the Court’s repeated refusal to address jurisdiction and the apex court’s directive could create an appearance of bias:

“It creates the perception that this Court is not neutral; that it is more concerned with sustaining the prosecution’s narrative than upholding the law.”

He added, with evident restraint, that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

Omotosho then asked Kanu, if he as a Judge has done something to make Kanu suspect his impartiality, Kanu said not yet.

11. Concluding Prayer

Mazi Kanu concluded that no valid, subsisting, or cognisable charge exists before the Court. And told Justice Omotosho that, "even if I don't enter any defence my lord, you cannot convict me because you can't convict someone without a written law as per the non-derogable s.36(12) of the Constitution of Nigeria. So my lord, our efforts here are wasted".
He urged Justice Omotosho to:

Hold that no valid charge exists under Section 36(12) of the Constitution;
Recognise that any trial on the repealed TPAA 2013 violates constitutional and Supreme Court authority;
Declare the proceedings a nullity for want of jurisdiction; and
Order his immediate release from custody.

He closed solemnly:

“It would be a deliberate deviation from the Constitution and a conscious embrace of illegality for a court of law to compel somone to enter defence without any charge. That is a weighty responsibility no judicial officer should carry.”

12. Judicial Response

Justice Omotosho listened attentively but declined to entertain further submissions on the constitutional objection at this stage.
He cautioned Kanu to keep his powder dry, indicating that the issues raised would be addressed at a more appropriate procedural point at the end. He decreed that Kanu must enter defence on the 7th of November or he would be foreclosed.
Cited Authorities (Summary List)

Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341
Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 734 at 753
Utah v. State (2016) LPELR-40077(SC)
Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 at 495–496
FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022, 15 December 2023)
Sections 1(3), 35, 36(12), 122 Evidence Act, and 76(1)(d)(iii) TPPA 2022

Prepared by: Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., in court for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium

NgeneUkwenu:
Sentence him already, judge.

you have been singing this song since 2015 yet u cant sentence him. How can u charge someone based on law that dont exist lol? Tell omotosho to read it out 😁😁😁 where's the Treason felonies charges today? You people are not smart!!

You can't ask someone to open a defense based on law that dont exist😁😁😁😁 Gumi the terrorists sympathizers is walking freely na Ohamadike una wan jail

NgeneUkwenu:
Sentence him already, judge.

Sentence him under which law? Illiterate nigerians, you shall soon see how your banana republic will go down.

helinues:
Arrogance won't help Kanu with his court predicament. If you are being charged mostly for reckless statements, being detained for years which already made you frustrated, representing yourself to speak will complicate your matter and you won't be able to control your emotions.

When my lords are in the chamber with their wigs on, they are demi god

Nothing like arrogance here. There is nothing to defend, even on the 7th. Let's see what your predetermined judgement will be.

Section 36 (9) of the 1999 constitution is clear.....

"No person who shows that he has been tried by any court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior court."

Nnamdi Kanu has no case in court as long as Nigeria's constitution is concerned. He needs to stand his ground as no court is greater than the constitution. Nnamdi Kanu will be aiding illegality if he obeys Justice Omotosho.

chiagozien:
The yoruba judge think Kanu is someone he can threaten to commit errors,so that he can read already scripted judgement gave to him.


Kanu said he's ready for his defense, but part of constitution he broke be stated to him.




God bless Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

...going, going....the chance will soon be called gone and KANU will get kuje uniform. Did I not tell you the lawyers knew they have failed woefully in this case and there is never a defense that can win the case for him? You said KANU sacked all of you, but they are still attending all proceeding under guise of consultants. These Biafra lawyers will not keep amazing you. The lawyers are the ones deceiving themselves and teaching kanu all the drama at background since. At least if they are serious lawyers, they would have attempted to open their defense and bleed the court to reduce the punishment given some reasons that the judge may consider to reduce sentence for him.

South west lawyers would have defended this case to the last end professionally or even admit on time why their client is guilty, but did so due to certain reasons that the court may consider to minimize the punishment against their client. But arrogance and sturboness will always be the downfall of some Biafrans who think they know when they know nothing. Nobody should disturb me with empty noise of free KANU protest if court sentence him to minimum of 20years or life sentence.

Sentence him already. Yoruba judge should do whatever is in his mind let's see whether heaven or earth will fall. Yeye people

sreamsense:
...going, going....the chance will soon be called gone and KANU will get kuje uniform. Did I not tell you the lawyers knew they have failed woefully in this case and there is never a defense that can win the case for him? You said KANU sacked all of you, but they are still attending all proceeding under guise of consultants. These Biafra lawyers will not keep amazing you. The lawyers are the ones deceiving themselves and teaching kanu all the drama at background since. At least if they are serious lawyers, they would have attempted to open their defense and bleed the court to reduce the punishment given some reasons that the judge may consider to reduce sentence for him.

South west lawyers would have defended this case to the last end professionally or even admit on time why their client is guilty, but did so due to certain reasons that the court may consider to minimize the punishment against their client. But arrogance and sturboness will always be the downfall of some Biafrans who think they know when they know nothing. Nobody should disturb me with empty noise of free KANU protest if court sentence him to minimum of 20years or life sentence.

Trash

truthera:
Section 36 (9) of the 1999 constitution is clear.....

"No person who shows that he has been tried by any court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior court."

Nnamdi Kanu has no case in court as long as Nigeria's constitution is concerned. He needs to stand his ground as no court is greater than the constitution. Nnamdi Kanu will be aiding illegality if he obeys Justice Omotosho.

You keep wasting your precious time writing 4040,50 pages of irrelevant lenghty text to defend KANU. I told you to go and borrow KANU and his consultant background lawyers all your compiled irrelevant laws and constitution you displayed yesterday to aid them defend KANU because it seems the lawyers are not lost of idea. Unfortunately, you are quoting the law online where there is no court session. How will that help kanu and his lawyers?

Bluntguy:
Nothing like arrogance here. There is nothing to defend, even on the 7th. Let's see what your predetermined judgement will be.

Una still dey run una mouth for social media. Hahaha

sreamsense:
You keep wasting your precious time writing 4040,50 pages of irrelevant lenghty text to defend KANU.

Hehehe 🤭 wonders shall never cease

Of all the people on this forum to make such a comment IT SHOULD NEVER BE YOU

You that ALWAYS types long - long things in futile defence of your tilumbu?

I swear IPOB are the most unintelligent terrorists on Earth. Every other terrorist operates ina place of value where they control the resources of that area while they occupy the area and use it to fund their operations.

The taliban occupied their zone and became the center for opium cultivation and supply.
The Colombian drug cartels (not strictly terrorists) used their occupied zone to control the cocaine production. boko Haram and ISWAP use controlled zone to mine for minerals.

Our brothers IPOB in the east have nothing in their zone so they use the occupied territory to kill people to eat.

Clowns!

helinues:
Arrogance won't help Kanu with his court predicament. If you are being charged mostly for reckless statements, being detained for years which already made you frustrated, representing yourself to speak will complicate your matter and you won't be able to control your emotions.

When my lords are in the chamber with their wigs on, they are demi god

Since when did you 'one Nigerianists' care what helps Kanu?

You guys just want the man locked up so you can carry on as if all is well with Nigeria

gidgiddy:
Since when did you 'one Nigerianists' care what helps Kanu?

You guys just want the man locked up so you can carry on as if all is well with Nigeria

That was Mwangi the impersonator from Kenya that was arrested. The real Nnamdi Kanu, Ohamadick 1 can never be arrested

casualobserver:
I swear IPOB are the most unintelligent terrorists on Earth. Every other terrorist operates ina place of value where they control the resources of that area while they occupy the area and use it to fund their operations.

The taliban occupied their zone and became the center for opium cultivation and supply.
The Colombian drug cartels (not strictly terrorists) used their occupied zone to control the cocaine production. boko Haram and ISWAP use controlled zone to mine for minerals.

Our brothers IPOB in the east have nothing in their zone so they use the occupied territory to kill people to eat.

Clowns!

That tells u IPOb are not hungry people. That is why they could reach to usa president to speak concerning nigeria

Lmaooo convict him if he wants
. Kanus has been clear you have no case

Do your worse