IPOB Leader Refuses Defense for Sixth Time, Alleges Invalid Law and Fabricated Evidence in High-Stakes Verdict
ABUJA – In a case that has gripped Nigeria for over a decade, the Federal High Court in Abuja is poised to deliver its judgment today, November 20, 2025, on the seven-count terrorism charges leveled against Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Kanu, who has been held in custody by the Department of State Services (DSS) since his controversial arrest and rendition from Kenya in June 2021, has refused to enter a defense for the sixth consecutive time, escalating tensions as the Southeast region braces for potential fallout.
The ruling, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, follows the court’s foreclosure of Kanu’s defense earlier this month after he failed to open it within the allotted timeframe. This decision came despite Kanu’s no-case submission being overruled in September 2025, where the judge determined that the prosecution had established sufficient evidence for him to respond. The charges, initially numbering 15 but pared down to seven by a previous judge, Justice Binta Nyako, include allegations of incitement to violence, unlawful possession of firearms, and membership in a proscribed organization under the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act. Kanu’s legal battles trace back to his initial 2015 arrest for similar offenses, from which he was granted bail on health grounds in 2017—only to flee the country amid a military operation at his Abia State residence.
At the heart of today’s proceedings is Kanu’s vehement challenge to the court’s jurisdiction. In a motion filed on November 7, 2025, the self-representing IPOB leader argued that Nigeria lacks a valid terrorism law to prosecute him, claiming the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act—under which the charges were brought—had been repealed, rendering the entire case invalid. He contended that his purported “not guilty” plea on March 29, 2025, was obtained under deception and coercion, in violation of Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Supreme Court’s directive in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022). Kanu has sought to expunge this plea from court records, set aside all subsequent proceedings, including witness summons and trial dates, and halt the judgment entirely. He has also appealed to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to stay the ruling pending resolution, personally submitting a letter to Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun on November 13, 2025, while urging the court to “arrest judgment ex debito justitiae” in the interest of justice.
Adding layers of complexity, Kanu escalated his counteroffensive on November 13, 2025, by filing a direct criminal complaint from DSS detention at the Chief Magistrate Court of the FCT, Abuja—marking the first such instance in Nigerian legal history. In it, he accuses the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the DSS Director-General, and two prosecution witnesses of criminal perjury, alleging they fabricated, coerced, and presented false evidence to build the case. Specifically, Kanu claims Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1, Mr. TAA) lied under oath during a trial-within-trial by denying knowledge of DSS official Mr. Brown Ekwoaba, who allegedly supervised Kanu’s 2015 detention, interrogations, and torture. The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium described this as exposing “state-coordinated perjury” and called for judicial acknowledgment that the prosecution’s evidence was tainted. Kanu’s family has further alleged that DSS restrictions on his access to lawyers and legal documents have impaired his defense, prompting a denied application for transfer to the National Hospital for medical evaluation.
The case’s trajectory has been marked by judicial ping-pong: The Court of Appeal struck out all charges and discharged Kanu in 2022, only for the Supreme Court to reinstate the seven counts, ruling he had questions to answer. Transferred from Justice Nyako to Justice Omotosho, the trial has drawn international scrutiny over Kanu’s rendition—allegedly involving forcible removal from Kenya—and his health, with IPOB labeling him a “political prisoner.” Security has been heightened across the Southeast, with analysts warning the verdict could inflame separatist sentiments or prompt unrest, given Kanu’s influence in Biafran agitation for South East self-determination.
As proceedings unfold at the Federal High Court, all eyes are on Justice Omotosho’s bench. Rights groups and community leaders, including activist Omoyele Sowore, who faces his own court appearance today on unrelated cybercrime charges, have renewed calls for #FreeNnamdiKanuNow, emphasizing conscience over “federal might.” The outcome could reshape Nigeria’s approach to separatism, judicial independence, and human rights—or deepen longstanding divisions in a nation grappling with banditry, economic woes, and calls for restructuring.
ABUJA HIGH COURT TO RULE ON NNAMDI KANU’S TERRORISM CHARGES TODAY AMID JURISDICTION BATTLE AND PERJURY CLAIMS
