Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has submitted a motion seeking to stop the federal high court in Abuja from delivering its judgment scheduled for November 20.
On November 7, Justice James Omotosho, the presiding judge, had fixed the date for judgment after Kanu failed to open his defence, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so.
In the new motion filed on Tuesday, Kanu urged the court to suspend its decision, arguing that the proceedings were conducted under repealed and invalid laws, thereby violating a directive of the supreme court.
He maintained that the trial court acted contrary to section 287(1) of the 1999 constitution, which mandates all courts to comply with the rulings of the supreme court.
Kanu is seeking a declaration that the trial court was constitutionally required to follow the apex court’s finding that count 15 (now count 7) “does not exist in law,” and that its failure to do so rendered all subsequent proceedings “null and void.”
He also urged the court to rule that the judge’s refusal to acknowledge the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, contrary to section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011, invalidates every action taken under the repealed statute.
Additionally, Kanu argued that under section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the federal high court lacked the authority to try him without proof that the alleged crimes were offences under Kenyan law or supported by a valid judicial order for extradition from Kenya.
He further claimed that the plea entered on March 29, 2025, was taken under a repealed law and in breach of section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, making it void and incapable of granting jurisdiction.
Kanu, therefore, asked the court to annul all proceedings and orders made by Justice Omotosho in case number FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, citing lack of jurisdiction and violation of constitutional supremacy.
The IPOB leader had earlier dismissed his legal team, choosing to represent himself, and maintained that there was no valid charge against him. Despite the judge’s advice to seek legal representation, Kanu insisted on his stance, describing his continued detention by the Department of State Services (DSS) as unlawful.