By Ehichioya Ezomon
Leader of the proscibed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, faces a possible but an avoidable court order that may negatively affect the seven-count terrorism charge against him if he fails to open defence today, Monday, October 27, 2025, at the Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city.
Trial Justice James Omotosho issued the warning on Friday, October 24, as Kanu, for the second day running, failed to open defence in which he’s representing himself after his surprise sacking of his entire legal team the previous day, with four days remaining – as proceedings commence today – of the six days he’s granted to close defence in the accelerated hearing.
This comes as attempts by protesters on Monday, October 20, to press for Kanu’s freedom, sans his trial, reignited the claim that he’s unjustly detained at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility in Abuja despite his discharge and acquittal by the courts of the offence of terrorism levelled against him.
Coinciding with the fifth anniversary of the October 20, 2020, #ENDSARS “peaceful protest” – to spotlight brutality of majorly innocent Nigerians by a rogue Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police – that turned violent, and resulted in deaths and destruction; the latest demonstration in parts of the country was adroitly handled by the security agencies.
Though criticisms trail the break-up of the protest in Abuja and Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital, with security operatives applying “minimum force” of deploying teargas canisters – even as the protesters alleged the operatives’ “use of live bullets,” which the Police have flatly denied – it’s merciful that avoidable injuries and deaths weren’t reported.
Otherwise, the security agencies would’ve had serious explaining to do to Nigerians and the international community for recourse to deadly weapons to suppress a “peaceful protest” called to press for the release of Kanu from a four-year-old detention in the DSS custody.
In the heat of the protest in Abuja, critics labelled as a “coward” the organiser, activist and former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore – shown fleeing the protest venue “to escape live bullets” allegedly fired by security operatives.
The public derision of Mr Sowore prompted a protest-day Facebook post by Prof. Farouq Kperogi, a Nigerian-American media scholar, columnist, blogger and activist, who queried: “I honestly can’t understand why some Nigerians are mocking Omoyele Sowore for retreating after security forces fired what sounded like live rounds during the #FreeNnamdiKanuNow protest in Abuja today. They’re cynically framing it as cowardice. Really?
“So bravery now means standing unarmed before flying bullets? And if he had died, they’d have called him foolhardy. You may disagree with his politics, which is entirely legitimate, but you can’t deny that Sowore has the courage of his convictions. He’s out there risking his life, comfort, safety and freedom for what he believes in, while most of his critics never step beyond their keyboards.”
The Kperogi post garnered over 4,000 views and reactions within 24 hours, with those for or against Sowore’s action almost evenly split. In my rejoinder, referencing the popular sayings, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen,” and “Don’t start anything you can’t finish,” I asked if Sowore had expected a lavishly welcoming reception from the authorities!
“Perhaps, he thought he’s calling Nigerians for a picnic,” l surmised, adding that, “if Sowore is a law-abiding citizen, and one that respects the rule of law,” he would’ve shelved the protest in deference to the court injunction restraining, and forbidding the protesters from certain critical areas across Abuja – places they reportedly wanted to breach, resulting in the push-back by security operatives.
In response, one Mondular Shehu queried: “Why must the government run to the court always to get a restraining order to stop a protest? Who’s interest is the court protecting? On what ground is the court asking the protesters not to protest? These and many more are questions begging for answers.”
To which I replied: “The government and the courts are trying to protect you and me, who maybe caught up in the protest, which, more often than not, turns into a riot, and destruction of life and property. My right to protest, as guaranteed by the amended 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, shouldn’t infringe on another citizen’s right not to protest.
“So, my right ends where another citizen’s right begins. Therefore, I have no right to deprive another citizen of their right by, for instance, trying to force them to join me in the protest, or denying people their freedom of movement by blocking the roads in the name of protest.”
As a reminder, I added: “You heard what happened in Napel, a South Asian country, where a recent Gen-Z protest turned violent, resulting in scores of deaths, and burning of a global iconic Hotel and the Presidential Palace – destructions estimated to cost billions of dollars, and about 50 years to restore them!
“These are some of reasons that the government and the courts get involved in protests, to secure life and property of the citizens and the government, as no right-thinking and patriotic Nigerian would want a repeat of the #ENDSARS violent protest, whose aftermath is still with us, especially in Lagos State.”
Pronto, one Shonzenba Wilson fired back: “Like seriously? Seeing comments like this makes me more sick about Nigeria. A government that refused a court’s verdict to free Nnamdi Kanu, is the same government that instituted a court case to stop a protest for his release, and logically, you think the verdict should have been respected.”
To put a lie to Shonzenba Wilson’s post, I responded that, “It’s INCORRECT and INACCURATE to claim that the courts freed Nnamdi Kanu, and the government refused to release him.” I sketched (with some reporting by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)) Kanu’s current stage of trial at the FHC in Abuja (reproduced below):
“While Kanu (Defendant) is presumed innocent until he’s proven otherwise, the courts have found that HE’S A CASE TO ANSWER, as the Prosecution (Federal Government) has been able to prove a PRIMA FACIE CASE against him.
“For the record, in 2022, while the Federal High Court in Abuja agreed that Kanu had a case to answer, the Appeal Court, Abuja, ruled otherwise, and ordered that he be released for his “unlawful rendition” from Kenya to Nigeria.
“However, the Federal Government appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, which on Friday, December 15, 2023, agreed that Kanu had a case to answer, and should go and defend himself in the remaining 7-count terrorism charge against him.
“Kanu wanted the Supreme Court to allow the judgment of the Court of Appeal and uphold his discharge and acquittal. But the counsel to the Federal Government, Tijani Gazali (SAN), urged the apex court ‘to allow the appeal; set aside the judgment of the court below (Appeal Court); affirm the judgment of the trial court (Federal High Court), to the effect that the Respondent (Kanu) should stand trial in respect of the charge, which the court below quashed; and dismiss the cross-appeal filed by Kanu.’
“In his submission, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Kanu’s counsel, urged the court to ‘dismiss the appeal by the Federal Government with punitive costs and uphold the cross-appeal (by Kanu) in order to do substantial justice to this matter,’ telling the court that his client had been in custody since June 29, 2021.
“However, the apex court, in the judgment written by Justice Garba Lawal, declined to order the release of Kanu from detention, and voided and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had ordered the release of Kanu and also quashed the terrorism charges against him.
“Justice Lawal held that although the Nigerian Government was reckless and unlawfully renditioned Kanu from Kenya, such unlawful act had not divested any court from proceeding with the trial.
“He noted that no Nigerian law was cited in the suit seeking Kanu’s release on the unlawful abduction from Kenya, adding that at the moment, ‘the remedy for such action is for Kanu to file a civil matter against the act, instead of removing the powers of courts to continue with his trial for alleged criminal charges,’ and ordered that, “Kanu should go and defend himself in the remaining 7-count terrorism charges against him.”
Rounding off my response to Shonzenba Wilson’s post, I added: “The trial, having continued under a new Judge at the Federal High Court in Abuja, Kanu, now led by a new counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), former Attorney-General of the Federation, had filed for a NO CASE SUBMISSION.
“But ruling on the submissions by counsel for Kanu and the Federal Government, the Judge held that the Prosecution was able to prove a PRIMA FACIE CASE against the Defendant, who should ENTER DEFENCE on the 7-count charge against him.”
This is the position as of today (October 27, 2025). There’s no subsisting court order to release or free Nnamdi Kanu from detention, or discharging and acquitting him of the terrorism charge against him! So, those clamouring for his freedom should leave the public space, and allow the trial uninterrupted and unimpeded.
That said, many Nigerians will be happy if the Federal Government were to free Kanu in one of two respects: 1) The President asks the Attorney-General of the Federation to enter a nolle prosecui, to discontinue the trial. 2) The President allows the trial to run its full course, and if convicted grants Kanu a presidential pardon.
Many, such as Omoyele Sowore and the protesters, will prefer the trial doesn’t go the whole length, and would rather the President ask the Attorney-General to halt it, considering Kanu’s reported health challenges, his length of detention in solitary confinement, and the pleas of the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, OHANAEZE NDIGBO, and individuals and groups over the years.
As the public monitor Kanu’s discharge of the onerous task of legally representing himself at the trial, further protests for his release may jeopardise the entire judicial and behind-the-scenes political settlement of the issues. Let cool heads prevail!
_Mr Ezomon, Journalist, writes from Lagos, Nigeria.
