A Dramatic Turn in Court
In a surprising development on 23 October 2025, Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), announced in open court that he was dismissing his entire legal team and would represent himself in his terrorism trial.
His lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), along with other senior lawyers on his defence team, formally withdrew from the case. Agabi told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the decision was made because Kanu had “taken this case back from us.”
When asked by the presiding judge if he wanted the court to appoint a new lawyer, Kanu declined and firmly stated that he would conduct his own defence.
What Led to the Decision
Kanu reportedly told the court that he no longer had confidence in his lawyers and preferred to handle the case personally. His decision came at a crucial point in the proceedings — the start of his defence — where he was expected to begin responding to terrorism, treasonable felony, and incitement charges brought against him by the Nigerian government.
He also reiterated his long-standing objection to the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that his arrest and rendition from Kenya were illegal and that the proceedings should not continue.
Court Response and Next Steps
Following the announcement, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, accepted the withdrawal of Kanu’s legal team and directed the remaining members to leave the courtroom.
Although Kanu attempted to reopen his jurisdictional objections, the judge overruled him and ordered that he proceed with his defence. The matter was adjourned to 24 October 2025 to allow Kanu time to prepare for his self-representation.
Significance and Implications
1. Self-Representation Risks
Representing oneself in a complex terrorism trial is highly risky. Without the expertise of experienced counsel, Kanu will have to navigate intricate legal procedures, evidence rules, and cross-examinations on his own.
2. Political Symbolism
As the face of the IPOB movement, Kanu’s decision has strong political overtones. By taking charge of his own defence, he may be attempting to assert control over the narrative of his trial and project defiance against the Nigerian state.
3. Impact on the Trial Process
This sudden change could lead to procedural delays, as the court will have to ensure that Kanu’s right to a fair trial is preserved despite his decision to go solo.
4. Renewed Jurisdictional Battle
Kanu’s insistence on contesting the court’s authority to try him signals that his legal fight will likely focus more on procedural grounds than on the substantive charges.
Background
Nnamdi Kanu is the leader of IPOB, a movement agitating for the secession of Nigeria’s South-East region to form an independent state of Biafra. He was first arrested in 2015 on charges of treason and incitement but fled the country in 2017 while on bail.
In 2021, he was re-arrested in Kenya and returned to Nigeria under controversial circumstances, an act his supporters have described as “extraordinary rendition.” Since then, his trial has gone through multiple delays, changes of judges, and frequent legal challenges related to his detention and prosecution.
What to Watch
- Whether Kanu will continue to represent himself throughout the trial or decide to reappoint lawyers later.
- How the court will balance his right to self-representation with the need to maintain trial efficiency.
- The reaction of his supporters in the South-East and how the development may affect IPOB’s activities.
- Whether renewed focus on jurisdictional issues will delay or complicate the hearing of substantive evidence.
Conclusion
Nnamdi Kanu’s decision to sack his lawyers and represent himself marks a dramatic and unpredictable turn in one of Nigeria’s most high-profile legal battles. The move underscores his determination to directly confront the charges against him while maintaining his political stance of defiance.
As proceedings continue, attention will remain on how the court manages the complexities of his self-representation and whether the case will finally progress after years of legal and procedural stalemate.
Would you
By
