Abuja, Nigeria — November 4, 2025 | Dalena Reporters
Seated inside the courtroom of the Special Tribunals Complex in Abuja, Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the secessionist group Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), declared to the panel of judges:
“I’ve no case to answer. Let me go.”
Kanu’s statement came during the opening of proceedings of a high-profile terrorism trial, in which he faces multiple counts of alleged terrorism, unlawful possession of weapons and offenses under Nigeria’s Counter-Terrorism Act.
The trial has drawn global attention, given Kanu’s prominent role in advocating for the Biafra secession movement and the broader implications for regional stability in Nigeria’s Southeast. Supporters view him as a political prisoner and freedom fighter; critics see a threat to national unity.
Kanu was first arrested in 2015 and subsequently fled abroad. He was extradited to Nigeria in late 2024 and now faces charges relating to alleged terrorism, founding an unlawful organisation and incitement to violence. The government contends that Kanu’s activities — public gatherings, fundraising, inflammatory rhetoric — have compromised national security. His legal team counters that he is a political activist exercising rights of speech and assembly.
By declaring he has “no case to answer,” Kanu is drawing attention to procedural concerns:
-
That investigations are incomplete or flawed
-
That charges may be politically motivated
-
That evidence may fail to meet legal thresholds for terrorism conviction
His words also reinforce the broader argument offered by advocates that the courtroom is being used to silence political dissent, rather than adjudicate bona-fide criminal conduct.
Nigeria’s 2004 Counter-Terrorism Act sets high standards for prosecution — including proving involvement in organised terror, financial support for violence, or attacks on critical infrastructure. Kanu’s defense appears to be shifting focus to challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the legitimacy of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Observers note that the tribunal’s decisions will carry weight — both legally and symbolically — in how Nigeria balances national security and political rights.
The Southeast region of Nigeria has watched the proceedings closely, with many residents expressing fear of increased policing and a clamp-down on civil liberties. Meanwhile, federal authorities have consistently emphasised that the state will tolerate no secessionist violence.
The trial may also affect Nigeria’s international relations: with the country already in the spotlight for religious-freedom and minority-rights concerns, high-profile prosecutions raise questions about rule-of-law and human-rights safeguards.