Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking to stop the Federal High Court from delivering judgment in his ongoing terrorism trial.
Kanu, through his legal team, filed an application asking the appellate court to suspend proceedings before Justice James Omotosho, who is scheduled to deliver judgment on November 20, 2025.
According to court documents cited by Channels Television, Kanu argued that the Federal High Court failed to address key jurisdictional issues and procedural irregularities he raised during the trial.
He claimed that Justice Omotosho refused to rule on several objections, including the court’s jurisdiction, the validity of the charges, and his right to present defence witnesses.
“The trial court, while refusing to rule on the objection, foreclosed my right to defend the heinous allegations levelled against me,” Kanu stated in his motion. “The court has now adjourned for judgment on November 20, 2025.”
Kanu maintained that allowing the lower court to proceed with judgment would violate his right to a fair trial, warning that it could result in an unlawful conviction before his appeal is determined.
“Further proceedings on the matter will stultify the appellant’s right of appeal and render any eventual appellate decision a fait accompli,” he argued.
He urged the appellate court to intervene, saying that granting a stay of proceedings would not prejudice the Federal High Court or the prosecution, noting that the case — which began in 2015 — only resumed before Justice Omotosho this year.
Justice Omotosho had earlier fixed November 20 for judgment after Kanu failed to open his defence within the six days allotted by the court. The judge ruled that the defendant, having declined to present his case within the given timeframe, could not claim denial of fair hearing.
Kanu, who faces terrorism-related charges filed by the Federal Government, insists that the trial should be halted until the Court of Appeal rules on his pending challenges to the High Court’s jurisdiction and procedure.
