Daily Justice - Latest News Updates in Nigeria

Abuja, Nigeria – April 29, 2025 – The ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), took a significant turn today at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The prosecution presented four boxes of items recovered from Kanu’s possession, including watches, personal clothes, a microphone, a DJ mixer, cables, Arabian perfumes intended for his mother and mother-in-law, a pair of brown shoes, laptops, chargers, and phones. Notably absent were any weapons, bombs, grenades, or attack plans, prompting scrutiny over the relevance of these exhibits to the seven terrorism-related charges Kanu faces. Presided over by Justice James Omotosho, the court adjourned the trial to May 2 and May 6, 2025, for further proceedings.

Kanu, a British citizen arrested in Kenya in June 2021 and charged with terrorism and treasonable felony, pleaded not guilty to all counts. His trial, which began in 2015 and has been marked by judicial recusals, bail disputes, and allegations of bias, is a focal point in Nigeria’s ongoing debate over free speech, separatism, and national security. Today’s presentation of exhibits has intensified questions about the strength of the prosecution’s case under Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2013.

Prosecution’s Exhibits: A Closer Look

The prosecution, led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), submitted the items as evidence allegedly recovered from Kanu’s bag. The absence of weapons or explicit attack plans has drawn attention, particularly given the gravity of the terrorism charges. Items such as laptops and phones could potentially contain digital evidence, such as communications or broadcasts, that the prosecution might argue incited violence or promoted IPOB’s separatist agenda. The microphone and DJ mixer could be linked to Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts, a central element in several charges. However, personal items like perfumes, clothes, and shoes appear less directly tied to criminal activity, raising doubts about their evidential value.

The prosecution’s strategy seems to hinge on demonstrating that Kanu’s possessions facilitated IPOB’s operations, particularly through Radio Biafra. Yet, without clear evidence of violent intent—such as weapons or attack blueprints—these items risk being perceived as circumstantial, potentially weakening the case in the eyes of observers advocating for Kanu’s right to free expression.

Analysis of the Seven Counts and Evidential Relevance

Kanu faces seven counts, reduced from an original 15 in April 2022, related to terrorism, treasonable felony, and illegal importation. Below is a critical analysis of each count, the prosecution’s allegations, and how the presented exhibits might—or might not—support the charges under the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2013, or other relevant laws.

Count 1: Committing an Act of Terrorism by Broadcasting with Intent to Intimidate

Allegation: Kanu, as IPOB’s leader, made broadcasts intended to intimidate Nigeria’s population, punishable under Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act.Exhibit Relevance: The microphone, DJ mixer, laptops, and phones could be critical here, as they may contain evidence of Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts. If the prosecution can prove these devices were used to make threatening statements, this could substantiate the charge. However, the content of the broadcasts must explicitly incite violence or intimidation, not merely advocate for Biafran independence, to meet the legal threshold. Without such evidence, the items remain neutral tools of communication. Critical Analysis: The line between free speech and incitement is thin. Kanu’s lawyers argue his broadcasts were political advocacy, protected under international human rights law. The prosecution must demonstrate specific intent to intimidate, which the absence of violent materials in the exhibits complicates.

Count 2: Committing an Act of Terrorism by Threatening Sit-at-Home Orders

Allegation: Kanu’s broadcasts threatened the public with sit-at-home orders, causing economic disruption in the southeast, punishable under Section 1(2)(b).Exhibit Relevance: Similar to Count 1, the electronic devices could contain recordings or messages ordering sit-at-home compliance. The prosecution claims these orders led to businesses closing and restricted movement. However, perfumes or clothes have no apparent link to this charge. Critical Analysis: Economic disruption alone may not suffice as “terrorism” unless linked to violence or coercion. Kanu’s defense maintains that sit-at-home orders were non-violent protests. The prosecution needs concrete evidence from the devices showing Kanu’s intent to terrorize, not just disrupt.

Count 3: Professing Membership and Leadership of a Proscribed Organization (IPOB)

Allegation: Kanu declared himself a member and leader of IPOB, banned as a terrorist organization, violating Section 16 of the Terrorism Act.Exhibit Relevance: Laptops or phones might contain documents or communications affirming Kanu’s IPOB leadership. However, personal items like shoes or perfumes are irrelevant. Critical Analysis: IPOB’s proscription is contentious, with Kanu’s team arguing it’s unconstitutional, citing a 2018 High Court ruling. If the court upholds this challenge, the charge could collapse. Even if devices confirm Kanu’s role, the prosecution must prove IPOB’s terrorist activities, which the lack of weapons in the exhibits undermines.

Count 4: Inciting the Public to Kill Nigerian Security Officers

Allegation: Kanu’s broadcasts encouraged attacks on security personnel, punishable under Section 1(2)(h) of the Terrorism Act.Exhibit Relevance: The prosecution would need to extract specific broadcast content from the laptops or phones explicitly calling for violence against officers. Other items, like cables or watches, are irrelevant. Critical Analysis: This charge requires direct evidence of incitement, not just separatist rhetoric. Without audio or text explicitly urging murder, the exhibits may fall short. Kanu’s defense could argue that his statements were taken out of context or were metaphorical, a common defense in free speech cases.

Count 5: Inciting Attacks on Nigerian Police Officers

Allegation: Kanu’s broadcasts incited attacks on police, also under Section 1(2)(h).Exhibit Relevance: As with Count 4, only digital evidence from phones or laptops could support this. The absence of attack plans or weapons weakens the prosecution’s narrative. Critical Analysis: The overlap with Count 4 suggests redundancy in the charges, potentially an attempt to overwhelm the defense. Proving incitement requires showing Kanu’s words directly led to attacks, a high bar that circumstantial device evidence may not meet.

Count 8: Inciting Violence by Directing Attacks on Federal Facilities in Lagos

Allegation: Kanu’s broadcasts incited the public to burn federal facilities in Lagos, causing economic loss, under Section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act.Exhibit Relevance: Digital evidence of broadcasts ordering such attacks would be essential. Personal items are irrelevant. Critical Analysis: Linking Kanu’s broadcasts to specific acts of arson requires a clear causal chain, which the prosecution has struggled to establish in past hearings. If the devices lack explicit directives, this charge risks being speculative. The defense could argue that economic loss alone doesn’t constitute terrorism without violent intent.

Count 15: Illegal Importation of a Radio Transmitter

Allegation: Kanu illegally imported a Tram 50L radio transmitter, concealed as household items, violating Section 47(2)(a) of the Criminal Code Act.Exhibit Relevance: The microphone, DJ mixer, or cables could be argued as accessories to the transmitter’s operation, though the transmitter itself wasn’t presented today. Laptops might contain import-related documents. Critical Analysis: This charge is the most tangible, as it involves a specific act of importation. However, Kanu’s team argues the transmitter was for lawful broadcasting, not terrorism. The absence of the transmitter in today’s exhibits weakens the prosecution’s ability to tie it to terrorist intent, and personal items like perfumes dilute the charge’s seriousness.

Broader Implications and Critiques

The prosecution’s reliance on everyday items as evidence highlights a potential weakness in their case. Terrorism charges typically involve clear evidence of violence or intent, such as weapons or attack plans, none of which were presented. The focus on laptops and phones suggests an attempt to prove incitement through digital content, but this requires precise, verifiable evidence linking Kanu’s words to criminal acts. The inclusion of innocuous items like perfumes and clothes risks portraying the prosecution as grasping at straws, potentially undermining their credibility.

Kanu’s defense, led by Kanu Agabi (SAN), has consistently challenged the charges’ legal basis, arguing that IPOB’s proscription is unconstitutional and that Kanu’s broadcasts are protected speech. They’ve also cited his 2021 rendition from Kenya as a human rights violation, a point upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2022 before being overturned by the Supreme Court. Today’s exhibits do little to counter these arguments, as they lack the overt criminality needed to justify terrorism charges.

The case also raises broader questions about Nigeria’s judicial system and its handling of separatist movements. Critics, including human rights lawyer Barr. Christopher Chidera, argue that prosecuting Kanu under the Terrorism Act is “procedurally flawed” and reflects a politicized judiciary. The government’s insistence on portraying IPOB as a terrorist group, despite limited evidence of violent acts directly attributable to Kanu, fuels accusations of suppressing dissent rather than addressing legitimate grievances in the southeast.

Conclusion

Today’s court session underscores the contentious nature of Nnamdi Kanu’s trial. The prosecution’s exhibits, while potentially relevant to proving Kanu’s broadcasting activities, fall short of demonstrating clear terrorist intent, particularly given the absence of weapons or attack plans. Each of the seven counts hinges on proving incitement or illegal acts, but the circumstantial nature of the evidence presented today may not meet the high legal threshold required. As the trial progresses, the court must balance national security concerns with Kanu’s rights to free expression and a fair trial, a task that remains fraught with legal and political complexities.