Nnamdi Kanu Files Motion To Stop Judgment In Terrorism Trial

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a motion asking the Federal High Court in Abuja to halt the judgment expected to be delivered on November 20.

KanyiDaily recalls that Justice James Omotosho had fixed the date after closing Kanu’s defence on November 7, following his refusal to present his case under a law he described as repealed.

In a motion dated November 10 and personally signed by him, Nnamdi Kanu asked the court to suspend the upcoming judgment in case No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

He argued that the trial was conducted under a repealed and invalid law, and that the proceedings also ignored the Supreme Court’s directives, which violates Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

Kanu maintained that the court failed to respect the Supreme Court’s ruling that one of the charges against him—Count 15, now Count 7—“no longer exists in law,”  insisting that any proceeding based on that count was therefore null and void.

He also argued that the Federal High Court failed to acknowledge the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, as required under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, which in his view, invalidates every step taken in the trial.

Furthermore, Kanu claimed that under Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the court had no jurisdiction to try him because there was no evidence that his alleged offences were recognized under Kenyan law or validated by any Kenyan court or extradition order.

He added that his plea, taken on March 29, 2025, under a repealed law, violated Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, and was therefore void.

Kanu asked the court to nullify all proceedings and orders issued by Justice Omotosho in the case for lack of jurisdiction and breach of constitutional supremacy.

Having dismissed his legal team, Nnamdi Kanu had argued that the terrorism charges against him are invalid since they were based on repealed laws, including the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, and the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45 LFN 2004.

However, Justice Omotosho ruled that Kanu had been given sufficient time to present his defence but failed to do so. The judge stated that the defendant had effectively waived his right to a fair hearing after refusing to use the opportunity provided by the court.