HomeHEADLINESTerrorism: Nnamdi Kanu knows fate today

Terrorism: Nnamdi Kanu knows fate today

-

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, will today know his fate in the terrorism and other charges leveled against him by the Federal Government.

 By Emma Ogbuehi

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, will today know his fate in the terrorism and other charges leveled against him by the Federal Government.

Abuja Federal High Court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, is expected to rule on a series of applications filed by both Kanu and the Federal Government, including a request by the IPOB leader challenging the competence of the charges against him and seeking his release on the grounds of alleged unlawful detention and infringement of his fundamental rights.

- Advertisement -

Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services since June 2021, following his controversial interception and return to Nigeria from Kenya in circumstances his lawyers describe as “extraordinary rendition”.

He is facing seven terrorism-related charges bordering on alleged incitement, running an unlawful group, and acts threatening national security—allegations he vehemently denies.

READ ALSO:

Court sets November 20 for judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s terrorism case

Justice Omotosho, on November 7, fixed today, Thursday November 20, 2025 to deliver judgment on the matter. Justice Omotosho fixed the date after Kanu failed to commence his defence within the six days granted by the court. Instead, the IPOB leader filed a motion contesting the validity of the charges and the court’s authority to hear the matter.

- Advertisement -

During the last proceedings, the court initially stood down the case for one hour after Kanu, who is now representing himself following the disengagement of his lawyers, expressed his intention to file a defence.

However, instead of doing so, Nnamdi Kanu submitted a fresh application arguing that his trial was anchored on a law that no longer exists. He maintained that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act relied upon by the prosecution had been repealed, rendering the charges invalid.

- Advertisment -Custom Text
- Advertisment -Custom Text
Custom Text