The Federal Government has called on the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to open his defence in the terrorism charges brought against him.

At Friday’s proceedings, lead prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), urged the court to reject the no-case submission filed by Kanu’s legal team. He argued that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case requiring the defendant to respond to allegations linking him to terrorist acts that allegedly resulted in the deaths of over 170 security operatives.

Adopting the prosecution’s final address, Awomolo stated that five witnesses had been presented and multiple exhibits, including audio and video recordings, were tendered during the trial contradicting claims by the defence that there was insufficient evidence.

He criticised the defence for attacking witness credibility rather than addressing the substance of the charges. “At this stage, the court is not to determine the truthfulness of the evidence but whether there is enough to justify the accused entering his defence,” he noted.

According to Awomolo, the audio-visual materials submitted in court featured Kanu admitting to leading IPOB, which has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. He also alleged that Kanu made inflammatory broadcasts calling for violence and destruction.

Responding to Kanu’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), who claimed his client was merely “boasting,” Awomolo countered: “Why will somebody say a terrorist who boasted that security men and other people should be killed, should be allowed to go free?” He argued that such statements, even if framed as boasts, had deadly consequences and must not be excused.

He dismissed the claim that Kanu had been in solitary confinement for ten years, clarifying that he was first arrested in 2015, granted bail in 2017, and was only re-arrested in 2022 after violating his bail conditions. “His current detention is lawful and based on a valid court order,” Awomolo stated.

Blaming the defence for trial delays, he added, “For three years, his counsel were responsible for the delay of trial. The delay had been the shenanigans of the defence team, not that of the prosecution.”

On the issue of IPOB’s proscription, Awomolo pointed out that the legality of the ban is already pending before the Supreme Court, and as such, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain arguments on its validity.

In response, defence counsel Kanu Agabi (SAN) maintained that the prosecution had failed to prove any element of the charges. “This man (Kanu) can boast. He was just boasting. He said I can bring the world to a standstill. I don’t see anything wrong with that. You don’t prosecute a man for mere boasting,” he stated.

Agabi argued that no prosecution witness claimed to have been incited by Kanu’s broadcasts. He referenced public figures such as DSS Director General Adeola Ajayi and former Defence Minister Theophilus Danjuma who had made similar calls for self-defence, suggesting that Kanu’s comments were not unusual in the political space.

He also questioned the admissibility of the ENDSARS report presented by the prosecution and reiterated that his client had been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement, exceeding international legal limits of 15 days.

Agabi challenged the credibility of prosecution witnesses, citing repeated responses like “I don’t remember” and “I do not know” over 80 times during cross-examination, arguing this undermined the reliability of their testimony.

He further accused the prosecution of failing to respond to 10 out of 40 key legal issues raised by the defence, saying such oversights were grounds for acquittal.

On the proscription of IPOB, Agabi insisted that the ban lacked proper legal backing, stating, “Without the President’s approval, there cannot be any proscription.”

He also contested the court’s jurisdiction over the charge related to an allegedly unlawful transmitter, citing a prior decision by the Court of Appeal.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice James Omotosho adjourned the case to October 10 for a ruling on whether to uphold the no-case submission and discharge Nnamdi Kanu or to reject it and require him to enter his defence.