The detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has withdrawn his initial decision to call witnesses in his terrorism trial, arguing that the charges against him lack merit.
Kanu had earlier applied to the court for 90 days to enable him to prepare his defence, explaining that he intended to call several witnesses.
In the motion, personally signed and filed before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, the IPOB leader listed 23 witnesses, divided into two categories: “ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable” witnesses, the latter to be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
Among those he had listed as compellable were high-profile figures including, the Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike, Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, and his Imo State counterpart, Hope Uzodinma.
Others named as witnesses include the Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN); former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd); and former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd). former Abia State Governor Okezie Ikpeazu, ex-NIA DG Ahmed Abubakar, and SSS boss Yusuf Magaji Bichi.
The motion, filed on October 21, 2025, and marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, followed the adjournment of the trial on October 24 to allow Nnamdi Kanu to open his defence.
However, when the case resumed on Monday, the detained IPOB leader informed the court that he had reviewed the case file and concluded that the prosecution had no valid charge against him.
Kanu argued that, having been subjected to what he described as an unlawful trial, there was no need for him to present a defence.
Justice Omotosho directed him to file a written statement formally outlining his position and serve a copy on the prosecution. The judge also advised Kanu to seek the opinion of criminal law experts on the legal implications of refusing to call witnesses.
The matter was adjourned to November 4, 5, and 6 for the adoption of final written addresses, during which the defence will either maintain Kanu’s position that the prosecution failed to establish a case or proceed to formally enter a defence.
