Nnamdi Kanu Rejects Trial, Claims No Valid Charges Exist – But the Record Says Otherwise

Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, announced on Monday that he would not enter a defence in his ongoing terrorism trial at the Federal High Court in Abuja. While in court, he expressed to Justice James Omotosho that there were no valid charges against him and that he would not dignify the case with a defence. The statement came at what was meant to be the opening of his defence phase, following months of adjournments and a series of procedural turns that have defined his trial since it began. 

“I have reviewed the case of the prosecution and found it is not worth defending,” Kanu said, addressing the judge directly. “There is no extant law in this country upon which the prosecution can predicate the charges against me. If there’s any, let my Lord read it out to me.” He argued that the charges brought against him do not exist under any Nigerian law and insisted that his continued detention was fraudulent and unsupported by legal precedent.

The claim, however, stands in contrast to the facts of the case. Kanu is currently facing seven charges; six of which are framed under the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act of 2013, and one under the Criminal Code Act. The prosecution alleges that Kanu incited violence across Nigeria’s South-east, issued threats against civilians and security personnel, enforced unlawful sit-at-home orders, and declared himself a member and leader of IPOB, an organisation formally proscribed by the Nigerian government. In one broadcast cited by the prosecution, Kanu allegedly threatened death against anyone who defied his sit-at-home directive, a statement that prosecutors argue contributed to widespread shutdowns of markets, schools, and public institutions in the region.

Another count accuses him of ordering attacks on federal facilities in Lagos State, leading to significant economic losses, while a separate charge alleges that he illegally imported a radio transmitter into the country in 2015. Together, the charges outline a portrait of political agitation that the state insists crossed into the territory of terrorism and incitement. 

Kanu’s decision to disavow the legitimacy of these charges comes at a particularly volatile point in his case. Since June, when the prosecution closed its case after presenting five witnesses, the court has been waiting for Kanu to open his defence. Over the last two weeks, the process has taken a series of unpredictable turns. On October 22, Kanu filed a list of 23 proposed defence witnesses, including current and former public officials, and asked the court for 90 days to prepare. Two days later, he dismissed his entire legal team, including lead counsel Kanu Agabi, SAN, declaring he would represent himself. By Monday, he had shifted again – insisting there was no valid case to answer at all.

Justice Omotosho cautioned him against refusing to enter a defence after his no-case submission had already been dismissed, reminding him that such a decision could have serious consequences. Still, given that Kanu now stands in court without legal representation, the judge advised him to consult with lawyers before making a final decision. The case has been adjourned to November 4 to allow him time to reconsider. 

Kanu’s defiance is not new, but it continues to shape his public image as both agitator and symbol – a man who blurs the boundaries between political dissidence and legal resistance. Outside the courtroom, the atmosphere remains charged. A protest led by activist Omoyele Sowore on October 20 called for Kanu’s unconditional release from detention, describing his four-year confinement as unjust and politically motivated. Inside the government, however, there is little appetite for leniency. Officials argue that Kanu’s rhetoric and directives have led to widespread insecurity in the South-east, grounding economic activity and fueling violent confrontations with law enforcement.

Since his re-arrest and extradition to Nigeria in June 2021, Kanu has occupied a peculiar space in the national conversation: a figure both reviled and revered, whose legal battles have become a proxy for the country’s unresolved tensions over identity, federalism, and dissent. His claim that there are no valid charges against him is less a legal argument than a political performance – a gesture meant to challenge the authority of the state itself. Whether that stance will alter the trajectory of his trial or merely harden the court’s resolve will become clearer when proceedings resume in November.