Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has given detained Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu until 5 November to open his defence in the terrorism charges filed against him by the Federal Government, or risk forfeiting his right to do so.
The judge directed Kanu to either consult legal practitioners knowledgeable in criminal law to assist in his defence or engage a lawyer to represent him in court.
Justice Omotosho’s decision followed Kanu’s continued refusal to defend himself on the grounds that there was no valid or subsisting charge against him.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Kanu, who represented himself, told the court he would not return to the Department of State Services (DSS) detention facility unless the charges were formally presented to him.
He insisted that his detention was unlawful, accusing the court of breaching the Supreme Court’s judgment which condemned his extraordinary rendition from Kenya. He also demanded an immediate discharge, maintaining that the terrorism charge was “invalid and illegal.”
Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, Kanu argued that no written law currently defines terrorism as an offence in Nigeria.
“The Constitution is the supreme law in Nigeria. There is no provision for terrorism offences in it. The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act has been repealed. I cannot defend myself under a repealed law,” Kanu said.
“Tell any lawyer to show me a valid charge. I am not ready to go back to detention today unless I am shown a valid charge against me.”
Despite the judge’s efforts to persuade him, Kanu remained adamant, prompting Justice Omotosho to adjourn the case until 5 November for the defendant to either enter his defence or waive his right.
Earlier in the session, counsel for the Federal Government, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, informed the court that documents filed by Kanu were unsigned and lacked the court’s endorsement, describing them as “worthless and of no probative value.”
He urged the court to disregard the documents and allow him to adopt his final written address. However, Justice Omotosho overruled the application, noting that the records showed the documents were duly signed and accompanied by evidence of payment.
