The decision by the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to forgo presenting witnesses or entering any defence in his ongoing terrorism trial has stirred sharp legal and public debate, with some experts calling it a “risky legal gamble.”
At the resumed hearing on Monday before the Federal High Court in Abuja, Kanu stunned the courtroom when he announced that, after reviewing his case file, he had concluded that there was “no valid charge” against him and therefore saw no reason to call witnesses or proceed with his defence.
“I have gone through the case file and realised that there is no valid charge against me. I am convinced that I have been subjected to an unlawful trial, and therefore, there is no need to conduct any defence,” Kanu reportedly told the court.
Presiding Judge, Justice James Omotosho, cautioned Kanu to seek professional advice from criminal law experts before proceeding with such a decision. The judge directed him to file a written address outlining his reasons and to serve the prosecution accordingly.
Justice Omotosho then adjourned the case to November 4, 5, and 6 for the adoption of final written addresses — either on Kanu’s claim that the prosecution failed to establish any case against him or for him to open his defence, should he reconsider his position.
However, the move has sparked intense reactions from legal experts, with human rights lawyer and activist, Inibehe Effiong, describing it as a perilous strategy.
“Nnamdi Kanu’s legal strategy is confusing at this point,” Effiong wrote in a Facebook post on Monday. “The court had previously overruled his no-case submission. It is no longer open to him to contend that he has no case to answer.”
He explained that under Nigerian criminal law, once a “no-case submission” is dismissed, the defendant must either open his defence or rest his case on the prosecution’s evidence.
“He has indicated that he no longer intends to open his defence,” Effiong continued. “If my assessment is wrong, then palpable confusion has ensued. He is taking a very risky gamble.”
The lawyer, however, clarified that Kanu’s decision does not amount to an admission of guilt. “The fact that Kanu has elected to pursue his case in this manner is not going to be construed as an admission of guilt. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution team would be deemed unchallenged, save for what was elicited under cross-examination.”
Effiong added that the court would still have to determine whether the prosecution’s evidence meets the legal threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. “I don’t know who’s advising Kanu or what his motivation is, but he is taking a very risky decision,” he emphasized.
Legal observers say Kanu’s latest move effectively places the weight of the case on the court’s assessment of the prosecution’s evidence, which now stands largely unrefuted.
The IPOB leader, who has pleaded not guilty to terrorism-related charges, was earlier expected to open his defence following the dismissal of his previous legal team. Monday’s proceedings, however, marked another dramatic twist in a long-running legal battle that has tested Nigeria’s judicial process and continued to attract national and international attention.
