The Federal Government has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject a no-case submission filed by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and compel him to enter his defence in the ongoing terrorism trial.
At the hearing on Friday, July 18, prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) argued that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including witness testimonies and video materials, to support the charges against Kanu. He urged Justice James Omotosho to disregard the defence’s attempt to discredit the evidence at this stage.
Awomolo told the court, “Why will somebody say a terrorist, who boasted that security men and other people should be killed, should be allowed to go free?”
He insisted that the law forbids statements that can instill fear in the public, adding that Kanu’s actions and statements went beyond mere boasting. “When a person is boasting and threatening death and violence, that cannot be said to be mere boasting,” he said.
The prosecution maintains that Kanu, in several audio and video broadcasts tendered in court, admitted to leading IPOB, a group that was officially proscribed. In those broadcasts, Awomolo said, Kanu allegedly incited violence and destruction, actions that reportedly led to the death of no fewer than 170 security personnel.
Awomolo continued, “If the defendant believes that he was merely joking and was a content creator, he should be made to answer why he was boasting and creating fear in the minds of the people.”
He also challenged the defence’s claim that Kanu had been in solitary confinement for 10 years, clarifying that the IPOB leader was first arrested in 2015 and granted bail in 2017, which was later revoked in 2021 after he jumped bail. “The current detention of the defendant is upon an order of the court,” he said.
Awomolo further blamed the defence for delays in the trial. “Their claim that this case has lasted for 10 years is not true. They are the cause of the delay,” he asserted.
On the issue of IPOB’s proscription, the prosecution argued that the legality of the group’s status is already before the Supreme Court, and the trial court should not interfere.
In response, Kanu’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), contended that the prosecution had failed to prove any element of the charges. He maintained that none of Kanu’s broadcasts directly incited violence, and no witness testified to being influenced by the defendant’s words.
“This man (Kanu) can boast. He was just boasting. He said I can bring the world to a standstill. I don’t see anything wrong with that. You don’t prosecute a man for mere boasting,” Agabi said.
He added that Kanu’s broadcasts merely called on people to defend themselves, a position shared by some government officials. “What the defendant said was that the people should defend themselves,” he said.
Agabi criticised the evidence presented by the prosecution, including an #EndSARS report, which he said was unauthenticated. He also challenged the reliability of prosecution witnesses, saying many frequently responded with “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know” during cross-examination.
“He (the defendant) is no longer normal on account of his solitary confinement. The case has been pending for 10 years. Memories have been lost, which is why most of the prosecution witnesses were saying they can’t remember,” Agabi told the court.
He argued that the statements attributed to Kanu were not investigated and that all prosecution witnesses came from the Department of State Services (DSS). “That is why they kept saying I can’t remember, I am not aware, because they did nothing,” he said.
Agabi also challenged the legality of IPOB’s proscription, claiming that there was no evidence of presidential approval. “We are saying there is no proscription, because there is no presidential approval; if they have it, they should bring it,” he insisted.
On the charge regarding the alleged unlawful importation of a transmitter, Agabi said the Court of Appeal had ruled the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
Following the arguments, Justice Omotosho adjourned the case to October 10, 2025, for a ruling on whether to uphold the no-case submission or compel Kanu to enter his defence.
