A fresh twist emerged on Tuesday in the ongoing legal proceedings involving Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), as his court-appointed lawyer formally withdrew from the case, citing irreconcilable differences.
At the resumed hearing, Kanu’s legal representative, Mr Demdoo Asan, a senior legal officer with the Legal Aid Council, informed the Federal High Court that he could no longer continue to represent the applicant due to fundamental disagreements that had made effective legal representation impossible.
Asan told the court that since the last adjourned date, he had been in frequent telephone communication with Kanu’s relatives, who were required to visit the Legal Aid Council office to depose to the application before the court. Despite repeated assurances, he said, none of the relatives honoured the invitation.
More critically, the counsel disclosed that Kanu had attempted to dictate the conduct of the case and determine what counsel should say in open court.
“He wants to write down what I would say while in court. But as an officer of the court, I can’t in good faith accept that,” Asan said.
He added that after consulting with his superiors at the Legal Aid Council, they unanimously agreed that continuing with the brief would undermine professional ethics and the dignity of the court.
“As officers of the court, when a matter comes to us, we handle it as we see fit; otherwise, the applicant can find legal help elsewhere,” he stated.
Invoking Order 50, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, Asan formally applied to withdraw from the matter.
READ ALSO,Legal Expert Highlights “Prosecutorial Silence” in Nnamdi Kanu Case
In his ruling, Justice James Omotosho commended the counsel for maintaining professional integrity and upholding the dignity of the court. He granted leave for Asan and the Legal Aid Council to withdraw from representing Kanu.
However, the judge noted procedural deficiencies in the application before the court, observing that there was no proof of service on other parties since the last sitting on December 8, 2025.
Although he described the motion as incompetent, Justice Omotosho said that in the interest of justice and fairness, all relevant parties should have been duly notified. He subsequently ordered that the ex-parte motion be struck out for lack of competence.
The development adds another layer of complexity to Kanu’s legal battle, as questions now arise over his future legal representation and the pace of proceedings going forward.