Alleged Terrorism: Nnamdi Kanu Petitions Court of Appeal to Halt Federal High Court Judgement

Nnamdi Kanu asks Appeal Court to stop Federal High Court judgment over alleged terrorism charges

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a new motion before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, seeking an immediate halt to proceedings at the Federal High Court (FHC), where judgment on his terrorism trial is scheduled for November 20, 2025. Kanu, who personally signed the motion, urged the appellate court to stay the Federal High Court’s planned judgment, arguing that the lower court’s actions were unconstitutional and conducted under a repealed law. He warned that allowing the judgment to proceed would amount to an unlawful conviction, potentially rendering his ongoing appeal meaningless. In the motion filed by Kanu himself, the IPOB leader maintained that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, lacks the jurisdiction to continue his trial. He argued that the seven-count terrorism charge preferred against him by the Federal Government was based on a repealed and non-existent law, namely the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2013.According to him, the repeal of the Act by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022 automatically invalidates all proceedings anchored on the 2013 law.Kanu also recalled that the Supreme Court had previously made a definitive ruling that Count 7 of the charges filed against him “no longer exists in Nigerian law,” yet the Federal High Court allegedly failed to comply with this directive.Appeal Against Dismissed No-Case SubmissionThe embattled IPOB leader stated that his fresh appeal stemmed from the ruling delivered on September 26, 2025, in which Justice Omotosho dismissed his no-case submission. Kanu had earlier challenged the validity of the charges, insisting that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish any prima facie case linking him to acts of terrorism. Rather than discharge and acquit him, as he expected, the trial court directed him to open his defense, a decision he described as “a miscarriage of justice.” 

“The totality of the prosecution’s evidence failed to prove any element of the alleged offences. Yet, the trial court refused to uphold my objection to its jurisdiction and the legal competence of the charges,” Kanu said in his motion.

In a 13-paragraph affidavit personally deposed to by Kanu, he raised serious concerns about the Federal High Court’s disregard for the Supreme Court’s order regarding the validity of some of the charges against him. He cited Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which mandates every lower court to obey and give effect to decisions of the Supreme Court. He alleged that by proceeding under a repealed law and ignoring the apex court’s directive, the trial court acted without constitutional authority. Kanu also argued that the trial judge failed to apply the mandatory legal test required under Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which compels a court to evaluate whether evidence presented during trial can sustain a conviction before ordering a defendant to enter a defense. He described this omission as a constructive denial of a fair hearing, contrary to Section 36(6) of the Constitution, stressing that he has been deprived of his right to a fair and impartial trial.

Claims of Procedural Errors and Lack of Evidence
Kanu further alleged that Justice Omotosho failed to properly assess the testimonies of the five prosecution witnesses and their responses during cross-examination. He maintained that the prosecution’s witnesses did not provide any credible evidence linking him to terrorism or any unlawful act.

According to him, “The Federal Government’s witnesses contradicted themselves on critical facts, and their statements were riddled with inconsistencies. Yet, the court ignored these inconsistencies and refused to strike out the defective charges.”

He also revealed that he had planned to produce 23 witnesses to prove his innocence after the issue of jurisdiction was settled. However, he claimed the trial court foreclosed his right to call witnesses and refused to rule on the constitutional validity of the charges before proceeding.

Grounds for Seeking Court of Appeal Intervention
Kanu’s legal motion before the appellate court is anchored on several constitutional and procedural grounds. These include:

1. Lack of jurisdiction: He contends that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction since the offenses were allegedly committed outside Nigeria (in Kenya) and were not validated by any Kenyan judicial authority or extradition order.

2. Repealed statute: He insists that the charges are rooted in the repealed Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2013, which no longer exists under Nigerian law.

3. Violation of constitutional supremacy: Kanu argues that the trial court’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court’s directive on the invalidity of Count 7 is a breach of Section 287(1) of the Constitution.

4. Constructive denial of fair hearing: He claims that conducting proceedings under a repealed law violates his right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Potential Consequences if Judgement Proceeds
Kanu warned that if the Federal High Court proceeds to deliver judgment as scheduled, it would effectively prejudge his pending appeal and make it “a mere academic exercise.”
He added that such an outcome would “foist a fait accompli” on the Court of Appeal, as any ruling by the appellate court would be rendered meaningless if a conviction is already delivered at the lower court. According to him, granting his application to halt the judgment would not prejudice either party but rather uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Pending Motion Yet to Be Heard
As of press time, the Court of Appeal has not fixed a date to hear the new motion.
It will be recalled that Kanu, who has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria in 2021, had earlier on Tuesday, November 11, 2025, also filed a motion before the Federal High Court seeking to suspend the planned judgment on the Federal Government’s terrorism charges.
In that earlier application, Kanu sought an “order arresting the delivery of judgment” on the grounds that the entire proceedings were conducted under a repealed law and in defiance of the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority.
He equally requested the setting aside of all proceedings and orders made by Justice Omotosho in case number FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, for want of jurisdiction and violation of constitutional supremacy.

The case of Nnamdi Kanu has remained one of Nigeria’s most politically and legally sensitive issues. As leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Kanu has faced multiple charges, ranging from treasonable felony to terrorism. Since his arrest and extradition from Kenya in 2021, the case has gone through several legal turns, including rulings by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court on procedural irregularities, jurisdictional questions, and the legality of his rendition. While his supporters see him as a political prisoner advocating for self-determination, the Federal Government maintains that his actions and broadcasts endangered national security and public order. The latest appeal adds another layer of complexity to an already prolonged and controversial legal saga, one that continues to test Nigeria’s judicial system and the delicate balance between national security and civil liberties.
See Also...‘Hands Off Nigeria’: NSCIA Warns U.S. Over ‘Fake Genocide’ Claims and Political Interference
As the nation awaits the Court of Appeal’s decision on Kanu’s latest motion, questions continue to arise about the rule of law, judicial independence, and the interpretation of Nigeria’s terrorism laws.
Whether the appellate court will intervene to halt the Federal High Court’s judgment remains uncertain, but the outcome could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s legal system and for the future of the detained IPOB leader.

By Primelineinfo