Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has held that the leader of the Indigenous people of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu used different tactics to stall his own trial.
The judge said this on Thursday while reading his judgement in the terrorism trial brought against Kanu. Justice Omotosho was then making pronouncements on the preliminary objections filed by Kanu. The judge had earlier said he would rule on the objections while giving the final judgement on the matter.
On the claim of Kanu that he was denied his right to fair hearing, the judge said while the law guaranted the right of parties in a suit, Kanu had only used delay tactics to stall his trial.
He said, his matter started in 2015, he jumped bail and was not back in Nigeria until 2021. He said Kanu had been unruly in court at different times.
Justice Omotosho said when he took over the matter in March 2025, he granted accelerated hearing and decided the case would be heard in morning and afternoon sessions of each day of the trial. He said there were, however, several adjournments at the instance of Kanu.
The trial judge said after he had overruled the no case submission filed by the defendant, he asked him to defend himself. “The Court mentioned the importance of the defendant to give evidence on oath because it is a criminal matter,” he said.
He said Kanu went ahead to disengage his judges and later claimed he was yet to be given his case file.
He said rather than defefend himself, ke kept claiming that the matter was filed under a repealed law.
He said, “This court has been extremely patient and lenient with the defendant . Failure to defend himself is his fault.”
Justice Omotosho also dismisssed the claim by Kanu that his alleged illegal extradition from Kenya to Nigeria, invalidated his trial. He held that the case of extraordinary extradition is quasi-criminal and oral evidence must be made to prove it. He held that Kanu failed to give the oral evidence that he was illegally extradited. He held that he merely swore to an affidavit on the issue and so could not be cross-examined by the prosecution. He also said the Supreme Court had already held that Kanu’s extraordinary extradiction did not strip the trial court of hearing the case against him.
The judge further dismissed the motion by Kanu that he should be relased because he was being tried under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013. The judge held that the Act was the one in force when Kanu allegely committed the offences for which he was charged. He also said that Section 98 of the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022 provides that the new law would not cancel ongoing cases under the old law.
