Timeframe: January – November 2025
Location: Federal High Court Abuja, Courtroom 2
Key Actors: Justice Binta Nyako (pretrial), Justice K.
Omotosho (trial), DSS witnesses PW1–PW5, defence lawyers Ifeanyi Ejiofor
& Mike Ozekhome
Epigraph:
“Our withdrawal is a protest against a process determined to convict
regardless of evidence.”
— Ifeanyi Ejiofor, press scrum, 20 October 2025 [1].
The Camera Lens
The courtroom’s glass dock reflected the fluorescent lights as Kanu adjusted his glasses. His principal lawyers had just withdrawn, alleging bias. Justice Omotosho warned that the case would proceed regardless. When asked if he would testify, Kanu shook his head: “I will rest on the prosecution’s evidence.” The gamble meant the State’s narrative would go unchallenged in open court.
Punch reported that Ejiofor and Ozekhome withdrew after accusing the court of denying them time to review fresh evidence and of shielding anonymous witnesses beyond what the Terrorism Prevention Act permits [1]. The judge allowed the withdrawal, appointed an amicus, and directed the trial to continue. Legal scholars were split: some saw civil disobedience; others saw strategic miscalculation.
Daily Trust described how five DSS operatives testified behind screens with altered voices [2]. Defence counsel could not see them; cross-examination relied on transcripts. The court cited the Terrorism Prevention Act and Evidence Act Section 36 to justify anonymity. Critics argued that the arrangement prevented effective confrontation and amplified the risk of hearsay masquerading as fact.
By declining to call witnesses, the defence triggered Section 167(b) of the Evidence Act, allowing the court to treat unchallenged testimony as admitted [3]. In effect, sensational claims—like orders for “2,000 heads”—entered the record untested. The moral stand against what Kanu viewed as an illegitimate process thus carried heavy legal costs.
The Federal High Court trial was less a contest of facts than a protest against procedure. By staging a walkout, the defence highlighted perceived injustice but also forfeited the chance to dismantle the prosecution’s narrative in real time.