The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, will today know his fate in the prolonged legal battle with the Federal Government.
A court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, is expected to rule on a series of applications filed by both Kanu and the Federal Government, including a request by the IPOB leader challenging the competence of the charges against him and seeking his release on the grounds of alleged unlawful detention and infringement of his fundamental rights.
Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services since June 2021, following his controversial interception and return to Nigeria from Kenya in circumstances his lawyers describe as “extraordinary rendition”.
He is facing seven terrorism-related charges bordering on alleged incitement, running an unlawful group, and acts threatening national security—allegations he vehemently denies.
Justice Omotosho, on November 7, fixed Thursday to deliver judgment in the charges brought against Kanu.
Justice Omotosho announced the date while ruling on the matter after Kanu failed to open his defence, having exhausted the six days allocated to him by the court to present his defence.
While Kanu failed to open his defence after the prosecution closed its case, the IPOB leader filed a fresh motion challenging his trial.
He stated that the earlier Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed, and as such, there are no valid charges against him.
He asked the court to expunge from its record “the purported plea of not guilty entered by him,” claiming it was based on deception and in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision.
He also sought an order setting aside all subsequent proceedings, arguing that they were founded on a nullity.
Kanu further asked the court to hold that the charges disclosed no offence known to law, as they were allegedly based on a repealed terrorism law. He requested an order striking out the charge for want of jurisdiction and directing his release.
He urged the court to dismiss the charges and allow him to go home.
However, Justice Omotosho had held that since Kanu failed to utilise the opportunity granted to him to conduct his defence, he could not claim to have been denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing.
Justice Omotosho reiterated the court’s position that no ruling or preliminary objection would be determined at this stage.
He noted that the case was filed in 2015 but suffered delays before being re-assigned to his court earlier this year, where it received an accelerated hearing.
He stated that the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered several exhibits before closing its case on June 19, 2025.
The judge observed that multiple adjournments were granted at the instance of the defendant, who sought to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
He recalled that Kanu’s no-case submission was earlier overruled, and the defendant was directed to open his defence.
Omotosho emphasised that the court had ensured a fair hearing, but noted that Kanu, despite initially agreeing to enter his defence, abandoned it and began claiming that there was no existing law under which he was being tried.
He said the defendant had not demonstrated seriousness in the proceedings, adding that he had personally appealed to Kanu “in God’s name” to present his defence and engage counsel.
Citing Supreme Court authorities, Omotosho held that if a defendant fails to utilise the opportunity of a fair hearing, the court cannot compel him to enter his defence.
The judge ruled that it was on this basis that Kanu had waived his right to defence and proceeded to fix a date for judgment.
Kanu’s legal journey has been marked by numerous adjournments, court orders, appeals, and counter-applications.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged him of all charges and ordered his release, ruling that his rendition from Kenya violated international law. The Federal Government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, which later set aside the appellate court’s decision and ordered that he return to the trial court.
His continued detention has remained a contentious issue, attracting widespread national and international attention. Various groups, including Igbo socio-cultural organisations, human-rights activists, and political leaders from the South-East, have repeatedly called for his release, arguing that it would help de-escalate rising insecurity in the region. The Federal Government, however, maintains that he has a case to answer and insists he must stand trial.
Today’s declaration is therefore pivotal, with implications not only for Kanu’s personal liberty but also for national stability and ongoing discussions around political reconciliation and security in the South-East.
Security has been strengthened around the Federal High Court premises as supporters, journalists and observers await the outcome of a matter that has remained one of Nigeria’s most politically sensitive trials in recent years.
Meanwhile, Kanu filed a suit before the Court of Appeal asking it to stop the trial Court from delivering judgment today in his trial. However, a date for hearing has not been fixed by the appellate Court, and no order has been given based on his request.
Police ready to maintain peace in Abia
Meanwhile, in Abia, Kanu’s home state, the police are not leaving anything to chance.
According to the Police Public Relations Officer, ASP Maureen Chinaka, the state Commissioner of Police, Danladi Isa, has noted that Abia State is currently peaceful, but nevertheless security strategies are in place ahead of whatever the outcome of the Thursday judgement on Kanu.
She quoted Isa as saying, “We have already placed security coverage to monitor the entire state. We put some security strategies in place to make sure there is no breakdown of law and order.”
Chinaka added that already, the state police are partnering with other security agencies in the state to keep the state safe.
“I tell you, in Abia State, officers of the Abia State Police Command, under the Commissioner of Police, are all out to ensure that law and order is maintained. And of course, we are collaborating with other sister security agencies to ensure we maintain safety.
“So, Abia is safe. The command, as the lead internal security agency at all times, is out to ensure the maintenance of law and order and protection of life and property. We are collaborating with sister security agencies. So, what I am saying is not only for tomorrow (Thursday).
“Already, every Monday, we have activities of police and other sister security agencies patrolling the state to ensure that there is maintenance of law and order.
“So, the command is not expecting any anti-behaviour on Thursday, whichever way the judgment goes. That’s why I said that officers are on the ground 24/7. The command is always out to ensure that the state is safe”.
Recall that Umuahia in Abia State is the hometown of the IPOB leader, Kanu. As of the time of this report, there has yet to be reported presence of security men in his Afaraukwu country home.
In Enugu State, the PPRO Daniel Ndukwe asked, “Have you seen the judgement that he is going to be convicted?”
The Force spokesman, Benjamin Hundeyin, did not reply to a WhatsApp message sent to his mobile telephone.
Kanu files a complaint against DSS witnesses.
In a related development, Kanu has filed a criminal complaint against two Department of State Services witnesses as the Federal High Court prepares to deliver judgment in his terrorism trial.
The complaint, dated November 13, and obtained by The Punch on Wednesday, was filed before a Chief Magistrate’s Court in Abuja.
The complaint signed by Kanu himself mentions Mr TAA, Mr BBB, the Attorney General of the Federation (Lateef Fagbemi SAN), Director General Department of State Services (Adewale Adeleye or his successor in office) as the defendants and himself as the complainant.
Kanu alleges that the witnesses—identified in court as TAA (PW1) and BBB (PW2)—gave “false evidence on oath.”
The filing cites Sections 156, 158(1), 159(1), and 160 of the Penal Code, Section 88 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and Sections 34 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The complaint reads partly, “On diverse dates between May and July 2025, at the Federal High Court, Abuja, during the hearing and trial-within-trial in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015), Mr TAA and Mr BBB, being witnesses called by the prosecution in my trial, wilfully gave false evidence on oath, knowing same to be false and/or not believing same to be true and material to the admissibility of the 2015 and 2021 statements, thereby committing perjury contrary to Sections 156, 158 and 159 of the Penal Code.”
Kanu alleged that TAA falsely denied knowing Mr Brown Ekwoaba, the Assistant Director (Investigations) at the DSS National Headquarters, who, according to him, supervised his October–November 2015 interviews and detention. The complaint referenced page 352 of the Certified True Copy of proceedings of June 26, 2025, where TAA reportedly stated: “I cannot recall… I didn’t know any other Mr Brown, my Lord.”
The IPOB leader said the denial was untrue, citing an affidavit by Prince Emmanuel Kanu confirming six visits to the DSS office where Ekwoaba allegedly conducted interviews; another affidavit by Benjamin Madubugwu confirming similar interactions; and public records showing Ekwoaba served as Assistant Director (Investigations) from 2015 to 2020 before becoming a State Director.
Kanu further accused BBB of false testimony, noting that although he claimed (on page 202 of the CTC of proceedings) to have never met Kanu except in court, he had previously testified (pages 184–188) that he led Kanu’s video interview at the DSS Headquarters on July 17, 2021.
He added that the two witnesses, who appeared masked and behind screens by order of the trial court, gave “materially false” testimony to obscure the true chain of custody of his 2015 and 2021 statements.
