“Trial Court Foreclosed Right To Defend Heinous Allegations” — Kanu Files Motion Seeking Stay Of November 20 Judgment Pending Appeal

In a last-minute bid to avert an impending ruling in his long-running terrorism trial, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja with a Motion on Notice seeking a stay of proceedings at the Federal High Court.
Kanu’s application, filed in person today, urges the appellate court to suspend further actions in his case, FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Nnamdi Kanu, before Justice James K. Omotosho. Specifically, he is requesting an order to prevent the trial judge from delivering the scheduled judgment on November 20, 2025, pending the resolution of his appeals challenging key decisions by the high court.
The motion highlights several grievances with the trial process, including the court’s refusal to address jurisdictional challenges raised by Kanu’s defense team. According to court documents from Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s special counsel, the IPOB leader argues that despite persistent objections, Justice Omotosho declined to rule on the validity of the charges and the court’s authority to hear the case.
Kanu further contends that the trial court failed to properly scrutinize the prosecution’s evidence in light of rigorous cross-examinations, which he claims effectively discredited key witness testimonies. “The trial court refused to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in relation to the cross-examination questions to determine whether the evidence was discredited under cross-examination,” the motion states.
A central point of contention is the handling of Kanu’s no-case submission and his right to mount a defense. Although Kanu submitted a list of witnesses ready to testify once jurisdictional issues were settled, the court deferred rulings on related objections until the judgment phase. This, Kanu argues, effectively barred him from presenting his side of the story. “The trial court, while refusing to rule on the objection, foreclosed the right to defend the heinous allegations leveled against me,” he stated in the filing. “The Appellant fields witnesses immediately the court determines its jurisdiction and the validity of the counts.”
The case, which originated in 2015, only resumed substantive proceedings before Justice Omotosho earlier this year. The judge allocated six days for Kanu to open his defense, but when that window closed without action from the defense due to unresolved preliminary matters, the court deemed the opportunity forfeited and set November 20 for judgment. Justice Omotosho has maintained that Kanu cannot now invoke his constitutional right to a fair hearing, as he did not utilize the provided timeframe.
In his appeal motion, Kanu warns of severe consequences if the stay is denied. “If the application is not granted, the Appellant may be unlawfully convicted without being afforded the opportunity of knowing the validity of the counts, the jurisdiction of the trial court, and offering defense on the merit,” the document reads. He emphasizes that proceeding to judgment would render any appellate intervention futile, undermining his right to appeal and potentially leading to an irreversible miscarriage of justice.
Kanu assures the court that a stay would cause no prejudice to either party, given the protracted nature of the litigation. “The trial court and the Appellant would not be prejudiced if the application is granted, the case having been prolonged since the year 2015, only to commence before the instant court sometime in this year 2025,” he noted. He implores the Court of Appeal to prioritize justice by allowing the matter to be fully ventilated on its merits.
The motion lists three primary grounds for the stay: the high court’s decision on the no-case submission, its refusal to determine jurisdiction and charge validity, and its effective closure of the defense’s opportunity to call witnesses.
As of now, the Court of Appeal has yet to schedule a hearing on Kanu’s application, leaving the fate of the November 20 judgment in limbo. The case has drawn international attention, with human rights groups repeatedly calling for Kanu’s release or a fair trial, citing concerns over his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021 and allegations of torture.
Kanu, who has been in custody since his 2021 rearrest, faces charges including treasonable felony, managing a terrorist group, and inciting public unrest, allegations he and IPOB vehemently deny. Supporters view the trial as politically motivated to suppress the separatist agitation for an independent Biafra in southeastern Nigeria.
The post “Trial Court Foreclosed Right To Defend Heinous Allegations” — Kanu Files Motion Seeking Stay Of November 20 Judgment Pending Appeal appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.