The Federal High Court in Abuja has again granted separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu a final opportunity to open his defence in his terrorism trial, warning that failure to act by the next adjourned date could result in the forfeiture of his defence rights.
On Wednesday, Justice James Omotosho presiding at the court gave Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), one last window to respond to the seven‑count terrorism charge brought by the Federal Government.
The judge noted that while the court had previously adjourned for Kanu to enter his defence, he was granting another chance, stressing:
“We had adjourned till today for the defendant to put in his defence or be deemed closed. But I am bound to give him another opportunity. If he does not, I will deem him closed.”
Kanu, now representing himself after dismissing his legal team, maintained that the charges against him are baseless.
He argued that the law underpinning his prosecution is invalid and declined to open his defence during Wednesday’s sitting.
The prosecution, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Adegboyega Awomolo, urged the court to foreclose Kanu’s defence, noting that most of the allotted time for presenting evidence had passed without witnesses or exhibits from the defendant.
Justice Omotosho also cautioned Kanu’s former lawyers who now act as consultants to strictly adhere to professional ethics after concerns were raised over media engagements and social-media commentary.
The matter was adjourned to Friday, 7 November 2025, when Kanu is expected to formally open his defence.
READ ALSO: Kanu Files Fresh Motion, Seeks Total Strike-Out of Charges
Failure to do so could prompt the court to close the defence phase and proceed directly to judgment.
Kanu’s trial, which has spanned several years, centres on allegations of terrorism linked to his advocacy for the secession of Nigeria’s south‑east.
His refusal or delay to formally defend himself could dramatically shift the trajectory of the case, allowing the court to move directly to judgment.
Justice Omotosho’s ruling underscores the court’s effort to balance the defendant’s right to a fair hearing with the need to maintain procedural integrity and prevent indefinite delays.