Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court has given Nnamdi Kanu a final window to defend the terrorism charges against him, setting November 5 as the date to open his case or be deemed to have waived the right to do so. The order followed the prosecution’s announcement that it had closed its case and the court’s decision to overrule Kanu’s no-case submission.
“In court, silence has a cost.”
Anonymous
What we know
The court had on October 27 adjourned to November 4 for Kanu to either file his final written address or open his defence. At Tuesday’s proceedings, Kanu, who is representing himself, told the court he had not filed a final address. Instead, he filed a motion and a supporting affidavit. He maintained that there is no valid charge before the court under any extant law and said he would not enter a defence on that basis. He also declared that he would not return to detention and demanded to be released immediately.
The judge’s directive sets up a clear procedural choice. If Kanu opens his defence on November 5, the court can test his claims against the evidence already admitted and any testimony he chooses to call. If he refuses, the record will reflect that he had an opportunity to answer the case and declined, and the trial will move on without a defence. Either path narrows the long-running dispute to what is on the charge sheet, what the prosecution has proved, and what, if anything, the defendant is willing to place before the court.
Kanu’s stance keeps the legal argument front and center. By insisting there is no competent charge, he is betting on procedure and jurisdiction rather than facts in dispute. That approach is not unusual in high-stakes criminal litigation, but it carries risk if the court has already ruled that the case should proceed. The practical implications are immediate for the defence team he leads and for court management, since the next sitting is now a deadline rather than a routine date.
For observers, the next hearing will answer three questions. Will Kanu open a defence despite his objection to the charge. Will the court treat his refusal as a waiver and move to the next stage. Will any intervening motions change the timetable. Until then, the case sits on a tight clock and on the defendant’s decision.
