In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle involving Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a no-case submission filed by Kanu’s legal team. The ruling, delivered on Friday, September 26, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in the high-profile terrorism trial that has captured national and international attention. Following the dismissal of the no-case submission, Justice Omotosho directed Kanu to commence his defense, signaling the next phase of the legal proceedings.
The ruling comes after the Federal Government concluded its case against Kanu, presenting witnesses and evidence to substantiate the charges leveled against the IPOB leader. Kanu, who has been in detention since his controversial rendition to Nigeria in June 2021, faces allegations of terrorism, treasonable felony, and incitement, among other charges. The case has been a lightning rod for debates about freedom of expression, self-determination, and the Nigerian government’s approach to separatist movements in the country.
Background of the Case
Nnamdi Kanu, a British-Nigerian activist and the founder of IPOB, has been a central figure in the agitation for the secession of southeastern Nigeria to form the Republic of Biafra. IPOB, established in 2012, seeks to revive the aspirations of the Biafran movement, which led to a civil war in Nigeria between 1967 and 1970. The group’s activities, including its calls for a referendum and its establishment of a security outfit known as the Eastern Security Network (ESN), have placed it at odds with the Nigerian government, which designated IPOB as a terrorist organization in 2017.
Kanu’s legal troubles escalated after he was arrested in Kenya in June 2021 and extradited to Nigeria under contentious circumstances. His arrest followed years of operating Radio Biafra, a platform he used to advocate for Biafran independence and criticize the Nigerian government. The Federal Government accused Kanu of inciting violence, promoting separatism, and coordinating attacks on security operatives in southeastern Nigeria through IPOB. Kanu, however, maintains that his advocacy is rooted in the right to self-determination as enshrined in international law.
Since his detention, Kanu has been held in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) in Abuja. His trial has been marked by legal maneuvering, public protests, and diplomatic tensions, particularly between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, given Kanu’s dual citizenship. The case has also sparked heated debates about the state of Nigeria’s judiciary, the treatment of detainees, and the broader socio-political dynamics of the country’s southeastern region.
The No-Case Submission and Court Proceedings
The no-case submission filed by Kanu’s legal team was a strategic attempt to have the charges against him dismissed without requiring him to present a defense. In legal parlance, a no-case submission argues that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient to warrant a defense. Kanu’s lawyers, led by Kanu G. Agabi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and former Attorney-General of the Federation, contended that the evidence presented by the Federal Government was insufficient to sustain the charges.
The Federal Government, however, presented a robust case, calling multiple witnesses and submitting documentary and electronic evidence to support its allegations. Prosecutors argued that Kanu’s broadcasts on Radio Biafra incited violence and that IPOB’s activities under his leadership constituted acts of terrorism. The government also pointed to alleged links between Kanu and violent incidents in southeastern Nigeria, including attacks on security personnel and public infrastructure.
On Friday, September 26, 2025, Justice Omotosho delivered his ruling, dismissing the no-case submission. In his judgment, the judge held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, thereby requiring Kanu to respond to the charges. The ruling was a significant setback for Kanu’s defense team, which had hoped to secure his release at this stage of the trial. Justice Omotosho’s directive for Kanu to enter his defense shifts the burden to the IPOB leader to counter the government’s allegations.
Kanu arrived at the Federal High Court in Abuja on the morning of the ruling, accompanied by operatives of the DSS and his legal team. The courtroom was filled with tension as supporters, journalists, and observers awaited the judge’s decision. Kanu G. Agabi, leading the defense, was joined by other senior lawyers who have been vocal in their criticism of the government’s handling of the case. The presence of such high-profile legal representation underscores the significance of the trial and the complexities surrounding it.
Accelerated Trial Schedule
The ruling on the no-case submission followed a decision by the Federal High Court to expedite the hearing of Kanu’s application for release. Initially scheduled for October 10, 2025, the hearing was brought forward to September 26, a move that caught the attention of legal analysts and Kanu’s supporters. The decision to fast-track the hearing was made to address the urgency of Kanu’s application, which included a plea for his transfer to the National Hospital for urgent medical treatment.
On Monday, September 22, 2025, SaharaReporters had reported that the court adjusted the trial schedule to prioritize Kanu’s application. The accelerated timeline was seen as a response to growing concerns about Kanu’s health and the prolonged nature of his detention. The trial, which has been ongoing for over four years, has faced multiple adjournments, logistical challenges, and procedural delays, fueling accusations of judicial bias and political interference.
The main terrorism trial was initially set to resume on October 10, 2025, when the court was expected to rule on the no-case submission. However, the court’s decision to move the hearing forward reflects the judiciary’s attempt to balance the demands of justice with the need to address Kanu’s health concerns and the broader implications of the case.
Kanu’s Health Concerns and Legal Battles
A significant aspect of Kanu’s legal strategy has been his application for medical treatment. In early September 2025, his legal team filed an application requesting that he be transferred to the National Hospital in Abuja for urgent medical attention. The application was supported by a 14-paragraph affidavit filed by Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu, who stated that the IPOB leader was suffering from a life-threatening heart condition. The affidavit further argued that the medical facilities provided by the DSS were inadequate to address Kanu’s health needs.
The application for medical treatment was heard by Justice Musa Liman, who served as a vacation judge during the Federal High Court’s annual recess. However, the hearing was adjourned due to logistical and jurisdictional challenges. On the day of the hearing, Uchenna Njoku, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria representing Kanu, informed the court that the Federal Government’s legal team had served a 37-page counter-affidavit that morning. Njoku argued that he needed additional time to review the document before proceeding with the case.
Adegboyega Awomolo, the lead counsel for the Federal Government, acknowledged the timing issue but noted that his team was prepared to address the matter promptly. However, Justice Liman expressed concern about his ability to rule on the case, as his tenure as a vacation judge was set to expire on the same day. The judge highlighted the urgency of the matter, describing it as a “life-and-death” issue, but ultimately directed that the case be returned to the Central Registrar for reassignment to Justice James Omotosho.
The adjournment of the medical treatment application underscored the complexities of Kanu’s case, which involves not only legal arguments but also humanitarian considerations. Kanu’s supporters have repeatedly accused the DSS of denying him access to adequate medical care, a claim that has fueled public outrage and protests in southeastern Nigeria and among the Igbo diaspora.
Broader Implications of the Case
The trial of Nnamdi Kanu is more than a legal proceeding; it is a reflection of Nigeria’s broader socio-political challenges. The agitation for Biafran independence, which Kanu has championed, is rooted in decades of perceived marginalization of the Igbo people in Nigeria’s political and economic landscape. The Biafran War, which claimed millions of lives, remains a painful chapter in Nigeria’s history, and Kanu’s movement has reignited debates about national unity, federalism, and the right to self-determination.
The Federal Government’s designation of IPOB as a terrorist organization has been controversial, with critics arguing that it stifles legitimate political expression. Kanu’s trial has also raised questions about the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary, particularly in cases involving political dissent. The prolonged detention of Kanu, coupled with allegations of mistreatment, has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and international observers.
The case has also strained Nigeria’s diplomatic relations, particularly with the United Kingdom. Kanu’s status as a British citizen has prompted calls from UK lawmakers and advocacy groups for his release or fair treatment. The Nigerian government, however, maintains that Kanu’s trial is a matter of national security and that he must face the full weight of the law for his alleged crimes.
Public and Political Reactions
The dismissal of Kanu’s no-case submission has elicited varied reactions from different quarters. Supporters of IPOB view the ruling as evidence of judicial bias and a continuation of the government’s efforts to suppress the Biafran movement. In southeastern Nigeria, where Kanu enjoys significant support, protests and sit-at-home orders have become common responses to developments in his trial. These actions have disrupted economic activities and heightened tensions in the region.
On the other hand, the Federal Government and its supporters argue that Kanu’s trial is essential to maintaining law and order. They point to the violence attributed to IPOB, including attacks on security personnel and public infrastructure, as justification for his prosecution. The government has also accused Kanu of exploiting ethnic sentiments to destabilize the country.
Legal analysts have noted that the dismissal of the no-case submission is not unexpected, given the gravity of the charges and the evidence presented by the prosecution. However, they caution that the trial’s outcome will have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s legal and political landscape. A conviction could further inflame tensions in the southeast, while an acquittal could embolden separatist movements across the country.
The Road Ahead
With the no-case submission dismissed, the focus now shifts to Kanu’s defense. His legal team is expected to present witnesses, evidence, and arguments to counter the prosecution’s case. The defense is likely to emphasize Kanu’s right to free speech, the lack of direct evidence linking him to specific acts of violence, and the political motivations behind his prosecution. The issue of his health will also remain a central theme, as his lawyers continue to press for access to adequate medical care.
The trial is expected to resume in the coming weeks, with Justice Omotosho presiding over the proceedings. The court’s handling of the case will be closely watched, both domestically and internationally, as it navigates the delicate balance between justice, national security, and human rights.
For Kanu, the stakes could not be higher. A conviction could result in a lengthy prison sentence, while an acquittal could reshape the dynamics of the Biafran movement. For Nigeria, the trial represents a critical test of its ability to address separatist agitations within the framework of the rule of law.
Conclusion
The Federal High Court’s ruling on September 26, 2025, marks a turning point in Nnamdi Kanu’s trial, setting the stage for a contentious defense phase. As the IPOB leader prepares to respond to the charges against him, the case continues to resonate far beyond the courtroom. It is a symbol of Nigeria’s struggle to reconcile its diverse identities, address historical grievances, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness. Whether the trial will lead to reconciliation or further division remains to be seen, but its outcome will undoubtedly shape the country’s future for years to come.
