Nnamdi Kanu takes over defence as lawyers withdraw from trial

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has taken over his own defence after his legal team, led by former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), formally withdrew from his trial.

Agabi, who had been representing Kanu in the terrorism-related case before the Federal High Court in Abuja, announced his withdrawal during Thursday’s proceedings.

He informed the court that Kanu had chosen to personally conduct his defence and had collected his case file from him and other senior members of the legal team.

Confirming the development from the dock, Kanu told Justice James Omotosho that he would henceforth represent himself, rejecting the court’s offer to appoint another lawyer for him.

In his first appearance as his own counsel, Kanu challenged the court’s jurisdiction to try him on the seven-count terrorism charge filed by the Federal Government.

Kanu, who has been in detention since 2021, also filed a fresh motion seeking permission to summon 23 high-profile individuals as witnesses in his defence.

The list includes serving governors, ministers, former public officials, and security chiefs.

Among those named are Governor Hope Uzodimma of Imo State, Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd).

Others include Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; former Abia State Governor, Okezie Ikpeazu; former Defence Minister, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd); former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency, Ahmed Rufai Abubakar; and former Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Bichi.

In the motion dated October 21 and marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu described the proposed witnesses as “vital and compellable,” requesting the court to issue subpoenas to ensure their attendance.

He also sought an extension of the six-day period earlier granted by the court to 90 days, arguing that the number and status of his witnesses require additional time to conclude his defence.