The Federal Government has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a no-case submission filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and compel him to open his defence in his ongoing terrorism trial.
During a hearing on Friday, July 18, prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) argued that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence — including witness testimony and video recordings — to substantiate the charges against Kanu. He asked Justice James Omotosho to reject the defence’s attempt to undermine the prosecution’s case prematurely.
“Why should someone who openly called for the killing of security personnel be allowed to walk free?” Awomolo asked the court. He maintained that Kanu’s statements were not harmless rhetoric but deliberate incitement intended to create fear and disorder. “When a person is threatening death and violence, that cannot be dismissed as mere boasting,” he said.
Awomolo stated that Kanu, in several audio and video clips tendered in court, admitted to leading IPOB — a group officially declared a terrorist organisation — and used his platform to promote violence, which allegedly contributed to the deaths of over 170 security officers.
“If the defendant thinks he was just creating content or joking, he must still explain why he made those statements that spread fear,” Awomolo said.
He also disputed the defence’s claim that Kanu had been held in solitary confinement for a decade, clarifying that the IPOB leader was arrested in 2015, granted bail in 2017, and later re-arrested in 2021 after jumping bail. “His current detention is based on a valid court order,” Awomolo stressed.
He further blamed the defence team for delays in the trial, rejecting the claim that the case had dragged on for 10 years. “That’s not accurate. The delays have come largely from their side,” he said.
Regarding IPOB’s proscription, Awomolo noted that the matter is currently before the Supreme Court and outside the jurisdiction of the trial court.
In response, Kanu’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), argued that the prosecution had failed to prove any elements of the charges brought against his client. He insisted that none of Kanu’s broadcasts directly incited violence and that no prosecution witness testified to being influenced by his statements.
“This man was merely boasting. He said things like, ‘I can bring the world to a standstill.’ That’s not a crime,” Agabi argued. “You don’t prosecute someone for bragging.”
Agabi maintained that Kanu had only encouraged people to defend themselves — a sentiment he said has also been echoed by government officials. He also criticised the prosecution’s evidence, calling it weak and unreliable.
He dismissed the inclusion of the #EndSARS report as unauthenticated and challenged the credibility of witnesses, many of whom, he said, responded to questions with “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know.”
“Kanu’s mental health has been affected by prolonged solitary confinement,” Agabi claimed, adding that the case’s long duration had eroded witness memory. “The statements attributed to him were never thoroughly investigated, and all witnesses came from the DSS. That’s why their testimonies were vague.”
He also disputed the legality of IPOB’s proscription, saying there was no documented presidential approval to support the declaration. “If they claim there’s presidential consent, let them produce it,” he said.
On the charge relating to the alleged unlawful importation of a transmitter, Agabi noted that the Court of Appeal had previously ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
After listening to both parties, Justice Omotosho adjourned the case to October 10, 2025, for a ruling on whether Kanu must enter a defence or if the no-case submission will be upheld.
