In a significant development in the terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed his no‑case submission and ordered him to open his defence. The ruling indicates that the court believes the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to warrant a defence from the accused.
What Is a No‑Case Submission?
A no‑case submission is a legal argument made by the defence, asking the court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case — that is, enough evidence for the case to continue. If successful, the accused is discharged without needing to present a defence.
Kanu’s legal team filed the no‑case submission after the prosecution closed its case, having called five witnesses and submitted various documents and media evidence. The defence argued that the prosecution’s evidence was weak and lacked the necessary legal substance to prove any of the terrorism-related allegations against Kanu.
Court’s Ruling
Presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, ruled that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case that Kanu must now answer. According to the court:
- The evidence submitted, including witness testimony and recorded broadcasts, raised serious questions that warranted a defence response.
- Rejecting the no‑case submission was not a declaration of guilt, but rather a procedural step requiring the defendant to respond to the case against him.
- The trial has been adjourned to October 8, 2025, to allow Kanu and his legal team to begin his defence.
The court also directed the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) to independently verify Kanu’s health condition and assess his fitness to continue with the trial.
Prosecution’s Case So Far
The prosecution, led by Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), maintained that Kanu’s actions and public broadcasts amounted to incitement, threats to national security, and direct violation of Nigeria’s anti-terrorism laws. Evidence submitted included:
- Audio and video recordings of broadcasts allegedly made by Kanu.
- Testimony from security personnel and investigative officers.
- Documents linking Kanu to the leadership of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
The prosecution argued that these materials demonstrated Kanu’s involvement in promoting violence and unrest, and called for him to explain or challenge these claims in court.
Defence’s Argument
Kanu’s legal team, headed by Kanu Agabi (SAN), insisted that:
- The prosecution’s evidence did not directly connect Kanu to any acts of violence or terrorism.
- None of the witnesses claimed to have been incited by Kanu’s alleged broadcasts.
- Some of the materials were inadmissible or unreliable.
- The proscription of IPOB was itself flawed, and therefore any association with it could not be criminalized.
- The court lacked jurisdiction over some of the charges, particularly those related to alleged actions outside Nigeria.
Despite these arguments, the court held that the case against Kanu was strong enough to proceed to the defence stage.
What Happens Next?
Kanu is now expected to:
- Call witnesses in his defence.
- Submit documentary or audiovisual evidence, if any.
- Cross-examine prosecution witnesses more thoroughly, if permitted.
- Make legal arguments in support of his innocence or procedural objections.
This next phase will be critical, as it will test the strength of both sides’ positions in detail. Importantly, the defence still retains the right to challenge the admissibility, credibility, and legality of the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
The court’s decision to reject Nnamdi Kanu’s no‑case submission signals that the trial is far from over. While the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, the onus now shifts to the defence to counter the allegations with evidence and legal reasoning. With the next hearing set for October, the case is poised to enter its most decisive phase.
By
