Many Nigerians – and certainly majority of Igbo, home and abroad – have followed the 10-year (since 2015) epic legal battle by the Nigerian government to link leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to an alleged treasonable felony and terrorism, resulting to deaths and destruction.
Yet, many Nigerians are unaware that Friday, October 10, 2025, could be “freedom day” for Kanu, whose journey to a long detention stemmed from his agitation for a separate “State of Biafra” from Nigeria – an attempt to resuscitate the defunct “Republic of Biafra” that led to the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970.
On Friday, July 29, 2025, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city, adjourned till October 10 a ruling on whether to allow a “no-case submission” by the defence, and free Kanu.
A “No Case Submission” is a legal argument that the defence usually moves after the prosecution has presented its case, to show that the evidence isn’t enough to prove the allegation against the defendant.
If the judge rules in his favour, Kanu will regain freedom from his “solitary confinement” at the facility of the Department of State Services (DSS), where he’s been held since 2021 following his rendition from Kenya, where he’s traced to after he jumped bail in 2017.
But if the judge rejects his application, and refuses to grant him a fresh bail, Kanu will enter a defence, and his detention will continue at the DSS dungeon or in the Abuja Correctional Centre, where he’d pleaded to be returned, to no avail.
The timelines of Kanu’s trial, as reported by Vanguard on July 18, 2025, are as follows: He’s arrested on October 14, 2015, and upon his arraignment, granted bail, on health ground, on April 25, 2017, and released from the Kuje prison on April 28, 2017.
Midway into the trial, Kanu escaped from the country after soldiers invaded his country home at Afara Ukwu Ibeku in Umuahia, Abia State, and was re-arrested in Kenya on June 19, 2021, and returned to Nigeria on June 27, 2021.
On June 29, 2021, the trial court remanded Kanu in custody of the DSS, where he remains till date. On April 8, 2022, the court struck out eight of the 15-count charge the Federal Government preferred against him, and on October 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Abuja, quashed the charge, and ordered Kanu’s immediate release.
But the government appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, which on December 15, 2023, vacated the appellate court’s judgment, and allowed the government to proceed with Kanu’s trial on the subsisting seven-count charge.
At the July 29, 2025, proceedings when the counsel concluded their addresses on the “no-case submission,” Kanu’s lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), called for dismissal of the trial, and Kanu’s acquital, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt.”
In a similar reporting by The Nation on July 18, and The Guardian on July 19, Agabi noted the prosecution’s failure to prove a single element of the offences charged, and bring before the court anyone who claimed he’s incited by Kanu’s broadcasts, which Agabi termed “mere boasting.”
“This man (Kanu) can boast. He was just boasting. He said ‘I can bring the world to a stand still.’ I don’t see anything wrong with that. You don’t prosecute a man for mere boasting,” Agabi said
Agabi said that Kanu, like other Nigerians, was concerned about Nigeria’s state of insecurity, hence he’d advocated self-defense against killer attackers.
He faulted the ENDSARS (October 20, 2020, protests against Police brutality of Nigerians) report tendered by the prosecution on the grounds that it wasn’t authenticated, and the death reports (relating to the protests) “without the doctors being invited to be cross-examined.”
Claiming Kanu’s detention violates International Law, which forbids solitary confinement beyond 15 days, Agabi said: “He (Kanu) is no longer normal on account of his solitary confinement. The case has been pending for 10 years.
“Memories have been lost, which is why most of the prosecution witnesses were saying ‘they can’t remember, they don’t know’ when they were asked questions.”
Referencing the record of proceedings, with the prosecution witnesses exhibiting ignorance “80 times,” Agabi argued that all the witnesses came from the DSS, and their participation was merely to obtain the defendant’s statements “without investigation.”
He stated that the witnesses’ responses didn’t satisfy the requirement of “proof beyond reasonable doubt,” adding that the prosecution failed to respond to 10 issues, which the defence raised in its 40-point address.
“If they (prosecution) failed to respond to one or two issues, it is enough for the court to acquit the defendant. But, in this case, the prosecution failed to respond to 10 issues raised by the defence,” Agabi said.
He urged the court not to attach probative value to additional evidence the prosecution filed after trial had commenced, as the charge had been amended about seven times, but no persons’ names were reflected as those who were allegedly incited by the defendant.
Agabi flayed the proscription of IPOB without the President’s approval, saying, “Without the President’s approval, there cannot be any proscription. We are saying there is no proscription, because there is no presidential approval. If they have it, they should bring it.”
Noting the Court of Appeal ruling relating to Kanu’s alleged unlawful importation of a radio transmitter into Nigeria, Agabi, who argued that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to try the charge, called for dismissal of the entire case, and acquital of Kanu.
In response to Agabi’s address, the prosecuting counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), urged the court to reject Kanu’s no-case submission, and allow him to enter a defence in the charge against him.
Awomolo said the prosecution supplied sufficient evidence to warrant Kanu to enter a defence, “to explain why he engaged in terrorism activities that promoted violence and destruction, including the killing of not less than 170 security officials.”
Noting the prosecution’s call of five witnesses and tendering of many exhibits, including video and audio evidence, Awomolo argued that contrary to the defence lawyer’s claim, the prosecution’s reply addressed all issues raised, to the effect that, “the no-case submission is of no moment.”
He adduced reasons why the court should dismiss the no-case submission, including taking a sweeping view of the evidence led so far, and determine whether a prima facie case was made out against the defendant to warrant his being called to enter a defence.
Saying the defence’s attack of the witnesses’ credibility, the record and the evidence led so far was “not what is required at this stage,” Awomolo noted that Kanu, in the video and audio evidence tendered by the prosecution, admitted being the leader of IPOB, “which he knew was a proscribed group.”
He faulted the argument that Kanu’s broadcasts amounted to “a clear case of boasting” requiring no criminal prosecution, stating that Kanu, in other videos, admitted to making broadcasts in which he called for violence and destruction.
Explaining that the law prohibits statements that could cause fear in the mind of the people, Awomolo asked: “Why will somebody say a terrorist, who boasted that security men and other people should be killed, should be allowed to go free?”
He dismissed the claim that Kanu had been in solitary confinement for 10 years, noting that he’s first arrested in 2015, and granted bail in 2017, but which bail was revoked in 2021 “on the grounds that he jumped bail,” adding that the court ordered Kanu’s current detention.
Accusing the defence legal team of causing the delays in the case, Awomolo said: “For three years, his (Kanu’s) counsel were responsible for the delay of trial. The delay had been the shenanigans of the defence team, not that of the prosecution. Their case (accusation) that this case has lasted for 10 years is not true. They are the cause of the delay.”
Awomolo argued that since the issue of IPOB’s ban is before the Supreme Court, it’d be inappropriate for the trial court to pronounce on whether the proscription was properly done.
Stressing that Kanu’s aim was to create a separate State of Biafra, with about 170 security men killed in the process “because of his boasting,” Awomolo queried, “Why was he boasting? If the defendant believed that he was merely joking and was a content creator, he should be made to answer to why he was boasting and creating fear in the mind of the people.”
“When a person is boasting and threatening death and violence, that cannot be said to be mere boasting,” Awomolo said, urging the court to call on Kanu to “come and explain what his boasting was about.”
In summary, the prosecution holds that a prima facie case has been made, such that the court should dismiss Nnamdi Kanu’s “no-case submission,” and order him to enter a defence of the felony and terrorism charge against him.
Conversely, the defence labels the prosecution’s case as an academic exercise based on Kanu’s “mere boasting,” and the failure to link or call any witnesses to affirm that his alleged incitement influenced them to commit acts of violence and destruction.
The question: Which facts, evidence and arguments will sway the court’s opinion on October 10: That a good case has been made against Kanu, and he should proceed with a defence, or that his “no-case submission” is enough for him to breath an air of freedom?
Well, we’ve seen this movie before, with Kanu returned again and again to solitary confinement. Perhaps, the storyline may be different this time!
Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357.