The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking an order to suspend further proceedings in his ongoing trial before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court.
In his application, Kanu is asking the appellate court to restrain Justice Omotosho from delivering judgment scheduled for November 20, 2025, pending the determination of his appeal against the lower court’s earlier rulings.
According to court filings, Kanu argued that despite raising fundamental jurisdictional objections, the trial judge refused to rule on them.
He also accused the court of failing to assess the credibility of prosecution witnesses against their cross-examinations.
Kanu faulted the court’s handling of his no-case submission, its refusal to determine jurisdiction and validity of charges, and the decision to foreclose his right to present a defence by calling witnesses.
He explained that although he had already submitted a list of defence witnesses, the trial court insisted that all pending objections would be addressed only during judgment.
This, he said, deprived him of the opportunity to properly defend himself against the serious charges he faces.
“The trial court, while refusing to rule on the objection, foreclosed my right to defend myself against the heinous allegations,” Kanu stated.
“If this application is not granted, I may be unlawfully convicted without knowing whether the counts are valid or whether the court has jurisdiction.”
He maintained that allowing the lower court to proceed would prejudice his right of appeal, making any eventual appellate decision a fait accompli.
Kanu added that neither the court nor the prosecution would suffer any harm if the stay of proceedings was granted, noting that the case, which began in 2015, only resumed before the current judge earlier this year.
Justice Omotosho had fixed November 20 for judgment after Kanu failed to open his defence within the six days allocated by the court.
The judge held that Kanu could not claim denial of a fair hearing since he had been given ample opportunity to defend himself.
Kanu, however, insists that the proceedings should be paused until the appellate court rules on the issues of jurisdiction and the validity of the charges.
