WorldStage– Detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally informed the Federal High Court in Abuja of his decision to personally lead his defence in his ongoing terrorism trial, a dramatic turn in a case that has defined Nigeria’s debate on separatism, national security, and fair trial rights.
The moves to personally defend himself in terrorism trial has fuelled speculation over rift with legal team as Abuja protest leads to arrests
In a motion reportedly filed and signed by Kanu himself, the separatist figure named 23 witnesses, including several high-profile military and political leaders, while requesting a 90-day window to conclude his defense.
The filing also indicates that Kanu intends to take the witness stand, offering a sworn account of his own role in the events at the heart of the case.
The court, however, has not yet ruled on the extended timeline request.
Court filings show that Kanu divided his witnesses into “ordinary but material” (for factual testimony) and “vital and compellable” (who can be subpoenaed under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011).
The latter category includes Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd.), former Minister of Defence; Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd.), former Chief of Army Staff; Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Governor of Lagos State; Hope Uzodinma, Governor of Imo State; Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory; Dave Umahi, Minister of Works; and Okezie Ikpeazu, former Governor of Abia State.
Sources familiar with the defence strategy say these witnesses are expected to shed light on the political and security dynamics surrounding the government’s response to IPOB activities in the Southeast.
The motion was signed solely by Kanu without the endorsement of his lead counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), or his special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor.
The omission has triggered speculation about internal disagreements within his legal camp.
The development follows the court’s dismissal of the defence’s no-case submission on September 26, 2025, which some insiders described as a source of frustration for Kanu.
His decision to act independently is being read by observers as a combination of strategic control and symbolic defiance.
The filing coincided with a protest in Abuja led by rights activist Omoyele Sowore, demanding Kanu’s release.
The protest was dispersed by security forces, and 13 individuals including Ejimakor, Kanu’s brother Emmanuel Kanu, and other IPOB supporters were arrested.
They were later charged with criminal conspiracy, disobedience to lawful orders, and public disturbance under the Penal Code.
Civil rights advocates have petitioned Attorney-General Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and the police, describing the arrests as an “attack on fair trial rights” under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
On September 23, 2025, a Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) panel diagnosed Kanu with hypertensive heart disease but declared him fit for trial. IPOB rejected the report as “compromised,” but Justice James Omotosho adopted it on October 16 and fixed six consecutive days (October 23–30) for the defence to begin.
Kanu, however, is seeking 90 days, citing the number and status of witnesses.
The judge is expected to consider this request at the next hearing on October 23, 2025.
The case, FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015), traces back to Kanu’s 2015 arrest and controversial rendition from Kenya in 2021.
He faces 15 terrorism-related charges, including managing a proscribed organization, inciting violence through Radio Biafra broadcasts, and financing terrorism.
The prosecution closed its case in June 2025 after presenting five Department of State Services (DSS) witnesses and multimedia evidence allegedly linking Kanu’s broadcasts to violent attacks and security force casualties in the Southeast.
Following the dismissal of his no-case submission, Kanu’s new decision to lead his own defence marks a pivotal shift one that could extend proceedings but also give him the opportunity to counter the state’s narrative directly.
The move has reignited fierce debate on social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
While supporters have praised Kanu’s decision as an act of courage and self-determination, critics see it as a tactical delay aimed at prolonging the high-profile case.
Legal experts note that allowing Kanu to conduct his own defence could shape not only the pace but also the tone of the proceedings, giving him a direct voice in a trial that continues to test Nigeria’s judiciary, political tolerance, and human rights record.
With the next hearing scheduled for Thursday, all eyes will once again turn to Courtroom 7 of the Federal High Court, Abuja, where the next chapter of the Nnamdi Kanu trial is set to unfold.
