In a dramatic development at the Federal High Court in Abuja today, the defence team of the separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu formally withdrew from his ongoing trial, leaving Kanu to represent himself. This move comes just as his defence was due to open in the matter of terrorism and treason charges brought by the federal government.
—
What unfolded in court
Lead counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN, applied to withdraw his appearance as Kanu’s lawyer, citing the defendant’s decision to assume his own legal representation.
All of the senior advocates of Nigeria (SANs) on Kanu’s legal team also withdrew from the case. Kanu himself confirmed the withdrawal in open court.
When the court inquired if a new lawyer should be assigned to Kanu, he declined the offer and indicated he would defend himself—at least for now.
Defending himself orally on the spot, Kanu argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him.
—
Why it matters
The withdrawal of such a high-profile and experienced legal team at a pivotal phase of the case marks a significant turning point in proceedings. With the defence about to open, the absence of seasoned counsel changes the strategic and procedural dynamics.
It raises questions about Kanu’s defense preparedness and whether self-representation is feasible in a complex terrorism/treason-related trial.
Given that the case involves serious charges and national security implications, the shift generates renewed attention on fairness, ability to mount a full defence, and the legal rights of the accused.
The move also potentially affects the pace of the proceedings, given the need for the court to ensure Kanu has a fair opportunity to defend himself even as matters shift unexpectedly.
—
Underlying factors & context
While court documents do not fully lay out every motive behind the withdrawal, media reports highlight the following:
Kanu appears to have initiated the change. According to multiple sources, he “took his case file” and opted to defend himself rather than continue with counsel.
The lead counsel’s application to withdraw references Kanu’s decision to do so.
The case is at the stage where defence is expected to open, immediately after the court dismissed the defendant’s no-case submission and found that the prosecution had a prima facie case.
In his first steps as self-defendant, Kanu filed an application listing both “ordinary but material” and “vital and compellable” witnesses under section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011—signalling an ambitious self-representation strategy.
—
Possible motives & considerations
It may be a strategic decision by Kanu: by taking control of his defence, he might aim to frame the case publicly, emphasise his narrative, or avoid disputes with his prior legal team.
Internal differences or dissatisfaction with counsel strategy cannot be ruled out: the timing suggests that as defence was about to open, Kanu preferred a more direct role.
There may be procedural motivations: self-representation might give Kanu more flexibility in raising jurisdictional or constitutional issues (which he did orally in court today).
At the same time, representing oneself in such a high-stakes trial carries significant risks—lack of legal experience, procedural missteps, and credibility of arguments all become issues.
—
What happens next
The court will need to ensure that Kanu’s right to a fair defence is protected, even as he chooses to represent himself. Depending on how things proceed, the court may still appoint standby counsel or give appropriate warnings on self-representation.
Kanu will now proceed with his defence, subject to the court’s timetable. His choice of witnesses and the complexity of his filings suggest a lengthy defence phase may follow.
Observers will be watching whether Kanu later re-engages with counsel or sticks with self-representation through to the end.
The government’s prosecution team may adjust its strategy in light of the changed dynamics—knowing that the defence side is now being conducted by the accused himself rather than experienced legal counsel.
—
Bottom line
Today’s decision by Nnamdi Kanu to proceed without his senior legal team marks a crucial juncture in his trial. By withdrawing his lawyers and opting to defend himself, Kanu has shifted the ground significantly. Whether this proves a bold strategic move or a risky gamble remains to be seen—but one thing is clear: the trial’s next phase will be markedly different.
We will continue to monitor developments in this case and provide updates as they unfold.
Senior Counsel Withdraws as Nnamdi Kanu Takes Own Defence in High-Profile Trial
