The ongoing trial of the IPOB leader at the Abuja Federal High Court has taken a controversial turn, with legal analyst Okezie Duruji claiming the state’s legal team is using silence to avoid critical legal hurdles.
Duruji, who serves with the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, argues that this lack of response to a key preliminary objection effectively grants the defense the upper hand.
In a press release issued this Thursday, on the 18th of December, 2025, Duruji contended that by failing to file a counter-affidavit, the prosecution has legally conceded to the facts presented by the defense.
The Filing: Duruji noted that “Before 4 November 2025, Kanu had filed a flagship Preliminary Objection (16 October 2025) supported by sworn affidavit evidence, raising repeal and subsistence of the charging law; Section 36(12) CFRN; extraordinary rendition; want of jurisdiction.”
He pointed out a complete absence of legal opposition: “There was no response from the prosecution. No counter-affidavit. No written address. No oral response. No preliminary objection in reply. Total prosecutorial default.”
The Legal Implication: Relying on judicial precedent, Duruji noted, “Under settled law unchallenged affidavit evidence stands admitted,” suggesting the court must accept Kanu’s claims as fact.
Duruji characterized the events of November 4, 2025, as a calculated retreat by the government’s lawyers. He believes the state remained quiet because they could not justify the charges under current law.
Reflecting on the courtroom dynamics, he stated: “Faced with direct, repeated, legally precise challenges from the Defendant challenges that went to the existence of the offence, the subsistence of the law, and the jurisdiction of the court the prosecution did nothing: no reply, no counter-affidavit, no oral confrontation, no identification of the governing statute, no opposition on substance. This was not incompetence alone. It was complicity through silence.”
READ ALSO: Kanu Freedom: Igbo Clerics Blast Governors for Broken Promises, Inaction’
The legal expert emphasized that the prosecution failed in its most basic responsibility: identifying the legal basis for the trial. According to Duruji:
The Prosecution’s Obligation: “In any criminal trial, the prosecution has one irreducible duty, to identify the law creating the offence and justify the court’s jurisdiction.”
The Specific Failure: He argued that “On 4 November 2025, the prosecution did not perform this duty once. Not once did he identify the extant offence-creating statute; respond to the repeal/subsistence argument; clarify which law governed the trial; counter section 36(12) CFRN.”
Duruji concluded that the state’s refusal to engage was a necessity rather than a choice, as any verbal defense would have exposed legal weaknesses. He maintained that “Silence was the only safe option. A prosecution that cannot speak the law has already lost. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not merely defend himself on 4 November 2025. He exposed the prosecution’s emptiness; forced constitutional questions onto the record; demonstrated that the state had no law to stand on.”