The legal battle of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has spanned a full decade and reflects on some of the most contentious intersections of national security, constitutional rights, and judicial procedure. What began as a routine arrest in 2015 has evolved into a complex legal saga marked by shifting charges, multiple judges, jurisdictional disputes, and escalating political sensitivities, writes Onozure Dania
The decade-long prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has been defined as much by appellate court interventions as by events at the trial court.
At critical points in 2022, 2023, 2024, and now in 2025, the Court of Appeal has either expanded, suspended, or redirected the legal trajectory of the case.
These appellate battles have now become the central focus in understanding how a 2015 arrest evolved into one of Nigeria’s most complex and politically sensitive criminal proceedings.
Kanu’s first major appellate triumph came on October 13, 2022, when the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered a judgment discharging him of terrorism charges.
The Justices held that the Federal Government violated international law in the manner of his “extraordinary rendition” from Kenya in June 2021. By that ruling, the Federal High Court lost authority to continue the trial. It was the single most dramatic legal win for Kanu in a decade.
However, this victory was short-lived. On December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. Though it agreed that Kanu was unlawfully rendered, it held that such illegality did not strip Nigerian courts of jurisdiction. The case was referred back to the Federal High Court to continue trial on the remaining seven counts.
That Supreme Court decision reset the litigation back to the starting line and returned the battle to Justice Binta Nyako’s court, before a new twist emerged.
In 2024, Kanu again turned to the Court of Appeal, this time challenging the proscription of IPOB.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for want of merit, declining to invalidate the organisation’s terrorist designation.
Justice Abang held that the appellant failed to establish a miscarriage of justice in the judgment of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in the matter.
This defeat paved the way for the Federal Government to maintain all terrorism-related charges that had survived earlier court reviews. It also reinforced the legal environment in which his renewed trial would proceed.
Following the Supreme Court’s 2023 directive, the matter resurfaced at the Federal High Court but was later reassigned to Justice James Omotosho, the fourth judge to preside over Kanu’s case.
On March 21, 2025, Kanu was re-arraigned on the seven-count amended charge, including terrorism and treasonable felony. He pleaded not guilty.
The trial soon became mired in delays. Kanu repeatedly sacked his lawyers, resulting in multiple adjournments. Despite this, Justice Omotosho eventually ordered him to open his defence and granted him six consecutive days to do so. Kanu declined.
On November 7, 2025, the judge fixed November 20, 2025, for judgment, ruling that Kanu could not claim denial of fair hearing since he refused to utilise the opportunity given to him.
Just as the Federal High Court prepared to deliver its long-awaited verdict, Kanu shifted the legal battle once again.
On November 12, 2025, he filed a fresh appeal before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, seeking to stop Justice Omotosho from delivering judgment.
The application shows a now familiar pattern in his decade-long defence strategy, combining constitutional objections, procedural disputes, and last-minute appeals to stall or neutralise the trial court outcomes.
Whether the Court of Appeal will intervene yet again remains the new focal question.
While the trial courts have handled the bulk of the evidence and procedural motions, the Court of Appeal has functioned as a recurring reset button, sometimes accelerating the case, other times suspending it, and occasionally redefining its legal boundaries.
Over the course of the ten years of trial, in 2022, the Appeal Court discharged him, in 2023, the Supreme Court reinstated the charges, in 2024, the Appeal Court upheld IPOB’s proscription, and in 2025, a new appeal seeking to stop the judgment of the Federal High Court was scheduled for November 20.
This cycle has kept the litigation in constant back and forth between progress and paralysis.
The appellate drama cannot be understood without recalling the messy beginnings.
Kanu was first arrested on October 14, 2015, and arraigned before a Magistrate’s Court on charges of conspiracy, intimidation, and membership of an unlawful organisation.
Magistrate Shuaibu Umsman granted him bail in the sum of N2m, with a surety in like sum.
After the magistrate granted bail, the DSS sought and obtained permission from the Federal High Court to detain him for 90 days.
When the DSS neither filed charges nor obeyed the release order that followed from a fundamental rights suit, the Federal Government filed new charges, including treasonable felony. But the proceedings were plagued by withdrawals. Justice Ahmed Mohammed stepped down after a defence protest, and Justice John Tsoho withdrew following a petition.
Judge recusals fuelled belief among many Nigerians that the case was too politically charged for judicial comfort.
Justice Binta Nyako eventually stabilised the process by partially striking out charges in 2017 and granting Kanu conditional bail on health grounds, after which he fled following the military’s Operation Python Dance in Abia.
On September 24, 2024, Justice Nyako withdrew from the trial, following Nnamdi Kanu’s application in open court, requesting her to recuse herself from the trial due to her disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders.
As the legal battle surrounding the detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, enters yet another chapter, a senior legal practitioner, Dr. Yemi Omodele, has weighed in on the deeper judicial issues raised by the latest appeal filed by Kanu.
For Omodele, the case is not only about law and politics it is also a reflection of the delicate balance between constitutional rights, judicial hierarchy, and the pace of criminal justice in Nigeria.
Speaking on the recurring legal turns that have defined Kanu’s prosecution since 2015, Omodele stated that the judiciary functions on a structure that must not be undermined.
“In our judicial system, respect is very important. When an appeal is properly lodged at an appellate court, the lower court ought to await the decisions of the appellate court,” he said.
The senior lawyer’s remark comes at a time when arguments have resurfaced about whether trial courts should continue proceedings while appeals sometimes interlocutory remain pending.
Kanu’s legal journey has been marked by multiple appeals, including at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as he challenges different aspects of his trial, detention, and the charges against him. According to Omodele, this is well within his rights.
“Nnamdi Kanu has severally exercised his constitutional right to appeal decisions of the trial court up to the Supreme Court. Whether the appeal was successful or not is another issue,” he noted.
The Constitution, he explained, grants every defendant no matter how politically exposed the right to challenge rulings they consider flawed or prejudicial.
One recurring theme in Kanu’s case is the use of interlocutory appeals, a procedural tool that allows a party to challenge specific rulings even before the substantive trial is concluded.
Omodele acknowledged the double-edged nature of this legal device.
“In criminal jurisprudence, interlocutory appeals are good but always delay the cause of justice, but at the end may be favourable,” he said.
Legal observers agree that such appeals can protect a defendant’s rights, but they also have the potential to stall trials sometimes for years.
With the latest appeal now before the Court of Appeal, Omodele says the real question is not whether Kanu can appeal because he can but whether the appeal will advance his cause.
“The recent steps taken by Kanu are within the constitutional provision, but will it assist? That is the issue before the appellate court,” he stated.
The answer, he emphasised, rests entirely with the appellate judges, who must now evaluate the merit of the appeal and determine whether it affects the ongoing proceedings at the trial court.
Another lawyer Elvis Asia, said the law is clear, the trial court must proceed, and no amount of procedural manoeuvring can legally halt the judgment.
Asia’s position points to a larger conversation about the integrity of criminal trials, the boundaries of interlocutory appeals, and the dilemma of a defence strategy that seeks to pause proceedings through successive applications.
Speaking on the rising tension over Kanu’s latest application to stop the court from delivering its November judgment, Asia said the legal framework governing criminal trials leaves no ambiguity.
“The High Court is legally obliged to proceed with the trial and deliver its judgment. The fact that Nnamdi Kanu has repeatedly approached the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and has now filed another application to stop the November judgment does not by itself suspend the proceedings,” he explained.
For Asia, the reason lies in the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the statute that governs criminal procedure in federal courts.
According to Asia, the trial court is bound by Section 306 of ACJA, which expressly prohibits the stay of proceedings in criminal matters.
This means that once a criminal trial begins, it must continue uninterrupted except where it is halted by a superior court through an express order.
“Under Section 306 of ACJA, the Federal High Court cannot entertain a stay of proceedings in a criminal matter, and an interlocutory appeal does not automatically halt a trial,” he said.
In practical terms, it means that the new application filed by Kanu has no suspensive effect, unless an appellate court issues a specific order something that has not occurred.
While acknowledging that every defendant has the right to challenge aspects of their trial, Asia warned that the serial nature of Kanu’s filings could be perceived as a troubling pattern.
“Without prejudice to the merits of his case, this pattern of serial interlocutory applications and his attitude in the trial proceedings may be viewed as an abuse of court process,” he stated.
He argued that the courts cannot be endlessly dragged into procedural loops while the substantive criminal charge remains unaddressed.
“A criminal trial must follow due process, and the court cannot be held hostage by repeated attempts to stall proceedings,” he added.
Asia added, that the effectiveness or eventual consequences of Kanu’s legal strategy rest fully on the shoulders of the defence team.
“In the final analysis, he will swim or sink with the strategy he has chosen,” he said. “Whatever grievances or legal objections exist are better resolved within the trial and not through procedural drama.”
The lawyer cautioned that while interlocutory applications are part of the legal arsenal, they cannot substitute for the core task of defending the case on its merits.
Asia Stated that the energy expended on what he calls “Hollywood battles” could have been better directed toward dealing with the substance of the allegations.
“The wiser and legally constructive path is to have channelled energy into establishing innocence on the merits, rather than exhausting the system with interlocutory and Hollywood battles that do not stop the trial and may ultimately weaken the overall legal posture,” he concluded.
Also another lawyer Ige Asemudara,
raised caution about the direction of Kanu’s defence strategy.
Asemudara said the matter is now firmly subjudice, but warns that Kanu’s sudden decision to sack his legal team may have serious consequences.
Asemudara, known for his strong views on constitutional litigation and criminal justice, refused to comment on the chances of Kanu’s latest applications or the possible outcome of his appeal.
“The case is subjudice. I am unable to comment on the substance or assess the potential outcome of Kanu’s applications or appeal,” he said.
According to him, commenting extensively on the merits while the matter is pending before multiple courts would be inappropriate and contrary to professional ethics.
However, the senior lawyer did not hesitate to comment on what he believes may be a grave tactical error on Kanu’s part, the abrupt dismissal of his previous lawyers in the middle of a complex criminal trial.
“All I can say is that Kanu’s decision to fire his lawyers was ill-conceived,” Asemudara stated.
“He needs a very good legal team,” he warned. “I hope he is properly advised before it is too late,” he said.
Another legal practitioner, Evans Ufeli,clarified what the law actually says about interlocutory appeals and their effect on criminal proceedings.
His detailed analysis cuts through public confusion surrounding whether Kanu’s latest application to the Court of Appeal can automatically suspend the judgment scheduled for November 20.
According to Ufeli, Nigerian law is unambiguous, merely filing an interlocutory appeal does not operate as a legal stop-order on a trial court.
“Under Nigerian law, the pendency of interlocutory appeals does not automatically suspend proceedings in the trial court,” he explained.
“Only an order of stay or injunction from a competent appellate court will lawfully halt trial proceedings,” Ufeli said.
He noted that Section 36 of the Constitution places a duty on courts to ensure criminal trials are heard within a reasonable time, reinforcing the High Court’s obligation to proceed unless expressly restrained.
Kanu has previously approached the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court at least three times, seeking reliefs relating to jurisdiction and the legality of his trial. His lawyers have now filed another application asking the Court of Appeal to stop the judgment.
Ufeli said none of these efforts, on their own, compel the High Court to stop proceedings.
“Previous unsuccessful approaches to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and the new attempt to persuade the Court of Appeal to halt the November judgment do not relieve the High Court of its obligation to continue the trial,” he said.
Unless the appellate court issues a specific directive, he added, the High Court “should not abdicate its duties,” he said.
Ufeli acknowledges that repeated interlocutory appeals can slow down proceedings, but insists that courts have remedies to discourage frivolous or abusive tactics.
“Where applicants engage in serial, frivolous or abusive applications to frustrate timely trial, courts have powers to dismiss appeals, strike pleadings, refuse further interlocutory relief and award punitive costs,” he explained.
These powers, he noted, preserve the integrity of the judicial process and prevent defendants from using procedural maneuvers to hold the court hostage.
Ufeli further explained that not all interlocutory appeals are created equal.
Where the appeal raises weighty jurisdictional questions, he says, it may be necessary for the appellate court to intervene.
“Interlocutory appeals that raise jurisdictional or competence issues may be dispositive of the trial’s validity,” he noted.
“In such circumstances, an appellate determination is often necessary and a stay may be appropriate,” he said.
He added that this means the appellate court can choose but is not obliged to temporarily suspend the trial.
According to Ufeli, both sides in the Kanu case have lawful options.
The defence may seek an express stay of proceedings or request an expedited hearing of the interlocutory appeal.
The prosecution may, on the other hand, apply for orders compelling the trial to proceed and ask for sanctions against dilatory tactics.
Also speaking on the IPOB leader’s latest attempt to stop the Federal High Court from delivering its scheduled judgment on November 20, a legal practitioner Babatunde Awe, said although the Administration of Criminal Justice Act was enacted to prevent criminal trials from being stalled by interlocutory objections, but noted that the case of Nnamdi Kanu is far from ordinary and far from over.
Awe said the trial has moved beyond the realm of straightforward criminal procedure and into a politically charged arena where legal rules alone may not determine how events unfold.
He began by acknowledging the intent of the ACJA, which expressly prohibits stay of proceedings in criminal matters so that trials can run smoothly without frequent interruptions caused by interlocutory appeals.
“The Administration of Criminal Justice Act has taken into contemplation the likelihood of interlocutory applications and objections interrupting the flow of trial and has thus provided for the elimination of stay of proceedings,” he said.
However, he cautioned that applying this provision mechanically to the Kanu case wouldn’t be simplistic.
Awe described Kanu’s trial as deeply entangled with national tensions and political undercurrents that cannot be ignored when evaluating the likely trajectory of the case.
“Mr. Kanu’s trial is more complicated than your regular run-of-the-mill criminal matter,” he noted.
“It is highly charged with all manner of interests and ethno-political sentiments, as well as intrigues from different quarters,” he said.
He suggested that the trial has become a crossroads of legal, political, ethnic, and security interests a mix that often results in unpredictable turns.
While lawyers and analysts often approach the matter from a strict legal standpoint, Awe believes this approach may not fully capture the dynamics at play.
“Looking at it from a purely legal point of view may not help a proper analysis of the possible direction things may go in the course of this trial,” he explained.
In his view, the case has exceeded the bounds of conventional criminal litigation and entered a zone where decisions may be influenced by factors well beyond the courtroom.
“One position I can safely adopt is that the trial is a long way from over,” he said.
“We should expect to see some new drama unfold which is likely to force the judgment into not being delivered by that date,” Awe added.