The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to suspend the judgment scheduled for November 20 in his ongoing terrorism trial.
Kanu, who is currently in detention, personally filed a motion on Monday asking the court to halt the planned ruling, arguing that his trial was conducted under a repealed law and should therefore be declared invalid.
The IPOB leader, facing a seven-count charge filed by the Federal Government, is accused of leading a separatist movement seeking to carve out parts of the South-East, South-South, and some areas of Kogi and Benue states to form an independent nation. The government also accused him of inciting violence through radio broadcasts and unlawfully importing a transmitter.
Kanu has consistently denied the charges.
The Federal Government had earlier closed its case after calling five witnesses. While Kanu initially listed 23 witnesses to testify in his defence, he later withdrew them, insisting that he would not “defend a charge that is unknown to law.”
Justice James Omotosho, who is handling the case, had previously granted the IPOB leader six days to open his defence, but after he failed to do so, the court fixed November 20 for judgment.
In his latest motion, Kanu contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed, since the trial was based on the repealed Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act 2013. He cited violations of Sections 1(3), 36(1–12), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution, and Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
According to him, “the trial court is bound by the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that Count 15, now renumbered as Count 7, does not exist in law,” adding that any proceedings relying on it “are null and void.”
He further argued that the court’s refusal to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act “renders all proceedings conducted under it a nullity.” Kanu also maintained that the Federal High Court could not lawfully try him without evidence that his alleged offences violated Kenyan law or that his rendition from Kenya followed a valid extradition process.
The motion also challenged the plea he took in March 2023, describing it as “a nullity conducted under a non-existent law and in violation of Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.”
Kanu, who is now representing himself after dismissing his legal team, said he was misled into entering a plea under an invalid statute.
“It is in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to arrest judgment ex debito justitiae,” he stated in the document.
He is seeking an order to stop the delivery of judgment and a declaration that any step taken by the trial court under the repealed law stands vitiated.
The court has yet to fix a date to hear Kanu’s fresh application.
