Justice Gives Nnamdi Kanu Until November 5 To Enter Defence Or Waive Rights In Terrorism Case

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court has given Biafra separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu until November 5 to either present his defence against terrorism charges or formally waive his right to do so.

The judge advised Kanu to consult with legal practitioners familiar with criminal law to assist in his defence or to appoint a lawyer to handle his case.

The directive comes after Kanu repeatedly refused to enter a defence, arguing that there was no valid charge against him. On Tuesday, he appeared in court representing himself and insisted he would not return to detention unless the charges were clearly presented.

Kanu maintained that his detention by the Department of State Services (DSS) was illegal, asserting that he had not breached any law. He also accused the court of disregarding a Supreme Court ruling that condemned his extraordinary rendition from Kenya and demanded immediate discharge.

When reminded that the Supreme Court had ordered a fresh trial, Kanu argued that the terrorism charge remained invalid. Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, he claimed there was no written law on terrorism offences in Nigeria and that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed.

“In Nigeria today, the Constitution is the supreme law. There is no provision for terrorism offences in the Constitution. There is no valid charge against me. I will not go back to any detention today. I cannot be tried under a law that has been repealed. Prosecuting me under a repealed law violates my fundamental rights,” Kanu stated.

Following lengthy arguments and Kanu’s refusal to defend the charges, Justice Omotosho adjourned proceedings to November 5, giving him the option to either present his defence or waive his right to do so.

At the same hearing, counsel for the Federal Government, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), requested the court to discount certain documents submitted by Kanu, claiming they were unsigned and lacked legal validity. The judge overruled the objection, noting that the documents in court records were properly signed and accompanied by evidence of payment.