Kanu, who has been in detention since his rearrest in June 2021 after jumping bail in 2017, appeared before Justice James Omotosho looking composed but resolute. The hearing resumed amid tight security, with armed personnel from the Department of State Services (DSS) ensuring the courtroom remained under strict control. Supporters of IPOB, who have often gathered outside the court premises in past sessions, were notably absent or kept at bay, reflecting the heightened tensions surrounding the proceedings.
Just days earlier, on Friday, October 24, 2025, Justice Omotosho had scheduled Monday's session specifically for Kanu to commence his defense. This decision came after Kanu lodged a formal complaint that the prosecution had failed to provide him with a complete copy of the case file, a document essential for preparing an adequate defense. The judge's ruling to fix the date was intended to address this grievance and move the trial forward, ensuring compliance with fair trial principles under Nigerian law.
Prior to this, on October 21, 2025, Kanu's legal team had filed a motion explicitly outlining their strategy. In that application, they expressed Kanu's intent to call approximately 23 witnesses to testify on his behalf. The motion also included a request for the court to issue witness summons, compelling these individuals to appear and provide evidence that could potentially exonerate him or challenge the prosecution's narrative. This plan suggested a robust defense aimed at dismantling the allegations of terrorism, treasonable felony, and other offenses leveled against him by the federal government.
However, when the case was called on Monday morning, Kanu personally addressed the court, signaling a complete reversal of strategy. Speaking directly to Justice Omotosho, he stated that he had thoroughly reviewed the case file provided to him. After careful perusal, Kanu declared that he had reached the firm conclusion that there was no prima facie case—or any valid charge—against him warranting a defense. "I have gone through the case file," Kanu reportedly said, "and I have realized that there is no valid charge against me."
Elaborating on his position, Kanu argued that the charges were fundamentally flawed and that the entire trial process amounted to an unlawful persecution rather than a legitimate prosecution. He contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution during their case-in-chief had failed to establish any link between him and the alleged terrorist activities attributed to IPOB. Furthermore, he maintained that proceeding with a defense would implicitly validate what he described as a baseless and politically motivated trial. In essence, Kanu invoked the legal principle of "no case to answer," a submission where a defendant argues that the prosecution has not adduced sufficient evidence to require a response.
This bold move caught many observers off guard. Legal analysts following the case noted that opting for a no-case submission is a high-stakes gamble. If successful, it could lead to an immediate discharge and acquittal without the need for the defense to present any evidence. However, if the court rejects it, the defendant may be compelled to enter a defense, potentially weakening their position by having waived the opportunity to challenge the prosecution's case through cross-examination or counter-evidence earlier.
Justice Omotosho, maintaining judicial composure, responded by directing Kanu to formalize his oral submission in a written address. The judge emphasized that this document must be filed and served on the prosecution team, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Federal Ministry of Justice, to allow for a proper response. In a piece of advisory counsel, which underscores the court's role in ensuring informed decisions, Justice Omotosho urged Kanu to consult with criminal law experts regarding the potential ramifications of his chosen path. "You should seek advice on the consequences of this option," the judge reportedly said, highlighting the irreversible nature of forgoing a full defense.
The prosecution, caught somewhat flat-footed by the abrupt shift, did not immediately object but is expected to file a counter-address vigorously opposing the no-case submission. They will likely argue that the evidence already led—including witness testimonies, documentary exhibits, and allegations of Kanu's broadcasts inciting violence—sufficiently establishes a case requiring Kanu's response.
With the defense phase now pivoting entirely to written submissions, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter to November 4, 5, and 6, 2025, for the adoption of final written addresses. These dates will determine whether the court agrees with Kanu's assertion that the prosecution's evidence and the charges themselves fail to make out a case against him, or if Kanu will be required to open his defense after all. Should the no-case submission fail, the trial would proceed to Kanu calling his witnesses, potentially prolonging a case that has already spanned several years and involved multiple legal battles, including appeals to higher courts and even international interventions.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), which provided detailed coverage of the proceedings, highlighted the broader context. IPOB, designated a terrorist organization by the Nigerian government in 2017, has been at the center of agitations for Biafran independence in the southeastern region. Kanu's arrest in Kenya and subsequent extraordinary rendition back to Nigeria have been criticized by human rights groups as violations of international law, adding layers of controversy to the trial.
Kanu's decision not to call witnesses—despite earlier preparations—may also reflect strategic calculations within his legal team. By resting on a no-case submission, they avoid exposing potential witnesses to cross-examination, which could be risky given the sensitive nature of the allegations. It also shifts the burden back to the prosecution to justify why the case should continue.
As the adjournment dates approach, anticipation builds. Supporters of Kanu view this as a potential breakthrough toward his release, while the government sees the trial as crucial for maintaining national unity and combating separatism. Legal experts predict a thorough scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence during the upcoming hearings, with Justice Omotosho's ruling likely to set precedents on the threshold for prima facie cases in terrorism trials.
This latest chapter in Kanu's saga underscores the complexities of Nigeria's judicial handling of high-profile political cases. It remains to be seen whether Kanu's gamble will pay off, potentially ending his ordeal sooner than expected, or if it will extend the legal battle into deeper evidentiary waters. For now, the court has set the stage for written arguments that could redefine the trajectory of one of the country's most watched trials.
