Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed a Motion on Notice at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, seeking to stop further proceedings in his ongoing trial before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court.
According to court documents obtained by SaharaReporters from his Special Counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu personally filed the application, requesting that the appellate court restrain the trial judge from delivering judgement as scheduled on November 20, 2025.
In the petition, he asked the higher court for “an Order staying the proceedings of the trial court in Case No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Nnamdi Kanu currently pending before Justice James K. Omotosho pending the hearing and determination of the appeal pending against its decisions in the case, particularly on:
‘Its decision on the No Case Submission; its refusal to determine its jurisdiction and the validity of the counts under which the Appellant is being tried; its foreclosure of the Appellant’s right to defend the case by fielding witnesses.’”
Kanu explained that, despite raising jurisdictional questions, the trial court refused to rule on them. “The trial court refused to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis the cross-examination questions to determine whether the evidence was discredited under cross examination,” he said.
He added, “Though the Appellant filed a list of witnesses to be called in defence of the case and indicated that the Appellant’s defence would come up and the Appellant fields witnesses immediately the Court determines its jurisdiction and the validity of the counts, the trial court refused and held that the decision would only be given on the objections during judgment.”
“The trial court, while refusing to rule on the objection, foreclosed the Appellant’s right to defend the heinous allegations levelled against the Appellant. The trial court has adjourned the matter for judgment on the 20th of November, 2025,” Kanu said.
He further argued, “If the application is not granted, the Appellant may be unlawfully convicted without being afforded the opportunity of knowing the validity of the counts, the jurisdiction of the trial court and offering defence on the merit.”
Highlighting the possible consequence of proceeding with the case, he added, “Further proceedings on the matter will stultify the Appellant’s right of appeal and any appellate decision fait accompli.
“The trial court and the Appellant would not be prejudiced if the application is granted, the case having been prolonged since the year 2015, only to commence before the instant court sometime in this year 2025.”
Kanu concluded that granting the application would serve the interest of justice and allow the matter to be examined on its merits.
