The Federal Government of Nigeria has formally closed its terrorism case against Nnamdi Kanu, the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), marking a critical juncture in one of Nigeria’s most controversial trials in recent memory.
This announcement was made on Tuesday by the prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, after the testimony and cross-examination of the fifth and final prosecution witness, known simply as “EEE” for security reasons. Awomolo informed the court that the government, after presenting five witnesses and an array of exhibits—including recordings and documents related to the IPOB leader’s activities—believed it had fulfilled its obligation to present a prima facie case.
“My Lord, I therefore close the case,” he declared to Justice James Omotosho.
Defence Set to Challenge Prosecution
Following the prosecution’s decision, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, counsel for the defence, indicated their intention to file a no-case submission, arguing that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to warrant the trial’s continuation.
Earlier during proceedings, the final prosecution witness, EEE, testified about his assignment to the southern region between 2020 and 2021. According to him, his mission was to gather data related to the #EndSARS protest, including details of public property destroyed and security personnel killed.
He presented three documents: an EndSARS assessment report, a list of deceased officers, and corresponding death certificates. These were admitted into evidence, despite the defence reserving its objection. The documents painted a grim picture—128 police officers, 37 military personnel, and 10 DSS operatives were reportedly killed, while 164 police stations and 19 INEC facilities were destroyed.
Cross-Examination Highlights and Disputes
Under cross-examination by Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, EEE admitted he did not personally investigate crimes allegedly committed by Kanu but rather focused on the broader consequences of the #EndSARS protest, which he claimed the IPOB leader incited through online broadcasts.
A fiery exchange followed:
Ikpeazu: “So when people destroyed properties in Osun and Lagos during #EndSARS, are you saying that was because the defendant told them to?”
EEE: “My assignment wasn’t to investigate Biafra, but the defendant’s role in inciting the public.”
Ikpeazu: “Are you aware that the protest was mainly about police brutality?”
EEE: “That could be a secondary reason. The main cause was subversion against the government, with the defendant’s broadcasts playing a role.”
The witness acknowledged not knowing or investigating other prominent protesters such as Aisha Yesufu and admitted he could not directly tie the entire #EndSARS movement to Kanu or Biafran separatism.
Background to a Tumultuous Trial
Nnamdi Kanu’s legal battles began on 14 October 2015, when he was arrested in Lagos after returning from the UK. He was granted bail on health grounds in April 2017 by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court and released days later.
However, in September 2017, a military raid on his residence in Abia State led to his escape from the country. His re-arrest in Kenya in June 2021 and extraordinary rendition back to Nigeria sparked a wave of global criticism and legal contention.
Initially facing a 15-count charge, eight were dismissed in April 2022 for lacking substance. The Court of Appeal in Abuja also ruled for his release, citing gross violation of international and domestic laws in his rendition. But in a major reversal, the Supreme Court on 15 December 2023 overturned this ruling, authorising the Federal Government to proceed with trial on the remaining seven counts.
Since then, Kanu has remained in DSS custody, awaiting the outcome of these latest proceedings.
What’s Next?
With the prosecution’s case now closed, all eyes turn to the defence, which plans to argue that Kanu has no case to answer. Should the court agree, the charges could be dismissed entirely, reigniting debate over the legality and morality of the government’s handling of the case.
This trial has not only tested Nigeria’s judicial integrity but also brought to light the delicate balance between national security, civil protest, and human rights.
