Drama As Nnamdi Kanu Disowns Counsel In Court

There was a mild drama in court on Tuesday when detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, disowned a lawyer, one Charles Ude, who claimed to be representing him.

Kanu is facing terrorism-related charge before the court.

During the trial, the presiding judge drew attention of parties to a letter from one Charles Ude, claiming to be counsel on record for the defendant.

However, the defence legal team denied knowledge of Ude, a stance Kanu himself affirmed, insisting Agabi remained his counsel.

The court also addressed the issue of the overcrowded defence team.

According to the judge, only 16 of the 26 lawyers listed would be allowed, citing a previous agreement and threatening to move the proceedings online, if decorum was not maintained.

“I don’t want to be pushed to take the case virtually; we have the facility,” the judge warned.

A separate incident involved a woman named Favour Kanu, who was accused of recording court proceedings during a previous sitting and allegedly publishing restricted content online.

The judge recounted how he had previously warned her and refrained from charging her for contempt.

Kanu, in an emotional plea, appealed to the judge for forgiveness on her behalf, quoting the Bible and admitting, “I owe them an apology.”

Favour, when called upon, claimed ignorance of the court still being in session and stated that she had stopped recording immediately after the warning.

“I didn’t know the court was still sitting. The moment you cautioned me, I stopped because it was a livestream,” she said.

The judge, while listening to both explanations, temporarily excused Favour from attending the next three sittings, reiterating the need for order and respect for the court’s process. “We must do things properly. Justice will be done,” he said.

Earlier, lead prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, raised concerns about a motion served on them for the release of certain exhibits tendered in court.

He noted the prosecution objected only to the release of non-perishable items.

During cross-examination of the first prosecution witness (identified as AAA), the defence counsel, Agabi, grilled the witness on his awareness of the charges and previous rulings.

The witness admitted knowing little about the details of the 15-count charge, including several that had reportedly been struck out by the court.

The witness acknowledged awareness of IPOB’s role in enforcing Monday sit-at-home orders, which the defence suggested was among charges that had been dismissed.

Agabi repeatedly highlighted that several serious terrorism-related allegations — including disruption of elections and attacks on federal property — were part of the struck-out charges, a point the witness said he was largely unaware of.

In re-examination, Awomolo asked the witness what he understood by “agitation” in the context of Kanu’s actions.

The witness responded that the defendant was pushing for the secession of parts of Nigeria.