Observers question the practicality of Kanu’s self-representation in his long-running terrorism trial
As the Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, dismisses all his legal representatives in his long-drawn terrorism trial, a question now reverberates across Nigeria’s legal and political landscape can he achieve what his lawyers could not in the last ten years?
The dramatic decision, announced through Kanu’s family and confirmed by sources close to the defence, effectively ends the involvement of the team that has represented him in his complex and controversial trial before the Federal High Court, Abuja. The team, which has over the years featured prominent lawyers including Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, and Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has fought numerous legal battles, from his arrest and rendition in Kenya, to his prolonged detention and repeated applications for bail.
A Case That Redefined Nigeria’s Legal and Political Boundaries
Kanu’s case, which began with charges of treasonable felony, has morphed into a larger constitutional and human rights saga, testing the limits of Nigeria’s criminal justice system. The matter has generated wide public discourse, not merely for its political undercurrents but for the legal principles it has spotlighted, including the right to fair hearing, the limits of executive power, and the jurisdictional challenges surrounding his extraordinary rendition from Kenya.
Observers note that despite several rulings, including a 2022 decision by the Court of Appeal which discharged Kanu of all charges (though later stayed by the Supreme Court), the trial has remained suspended in uncertainty.
The Decision to Go Solo
While reasons for the sack remain unclear, sources familiar with the matter suggest growing frustration on Kanu’s part over what he perceives as his lawyers’ inability to secure either his release or a decisive resolution of his case. From the confines of the Department of State Services (DSS) detention facility, Kanu reportedly resolved to take “direct control” of his defence and legal strategy, a move that has left even close associates divided.
Legal analysts are questioning both the practicality and legality of the decision. Under Nigeria’s criminal procedure laws, an accused person retains the right to self-representation, but such a path is rarely taken in complex criminal trials, particularly one involving terrorism charges and national security implications.
A senior constitutional lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity told DNL Legal & Style:
“Even the most experienced lawyers would find it challenging to manage such a case without a team. Kanu’s decision, though symbolic, may not help his cause in the long run. Trials of this magnitude require strategic coordination — both legal and political.”
A History of Legal Drama and Political Symbolism
Since his arrest in 2015, Kanu’s trial has been a blend of courtroom theatrics, political grandstanding, and constitutional debate. His movement, IPOB, was proscribed in 2017 and designated as a terrorist organization by the Nigerian government, a decision that has since shaped both the tone and trajectory of the case.
Despite several adjournments, interlocutory appeals, and public protests, Kanu remains in DSS custody. His legal team’s efforts to secure bail on health grounds have repeatedly failed, with the prosecution maintaining that his release could jeopardize public order.
The sudden dissolution of his legal team now raises procedural questions: Will new counsel be appointed? Can he competently represent himself from custody? How would the court treat his notice of self-representation, given the gravity of the charges?
Reactions and Broader Implications
The development has drawn mixed reactions across Nigeria’s legal community. Some see it as a desperate act of defiance; others view it as a calculated protest against what Kanu’s supporters describe as “judicial stagnation.”
Legal analysts have noted that while Kanu’s frustration may be understandable, dismantling the structure of his legal defence could prove counterproductive.
Beyond the legal implications, political observers suggest that Kanu’s move could reignite separatist sympathies and heighten tensions in the South-East, particularly among IPOB loyalists who view his incarceration as politically motivated.
What Lies Ahead
Whether Kanu intends to hire new counsel or personally conduct his defence remains unclear. The Federal High Court is expected to reconvene in the coming weeks to determine the next procedural steps, including the formal notification of counsel withdrawal and any fresh representation.
Meanwhile, constitutional scholars argue that the case continues to underscore a fundamental tension between state sovereignty and individual liberty, one that Nigeria’s judiciary must continue to navigate with utmost restraint and fidelity to due process.
As one senior advocate succinctly put it:
“What is at stake here goes beyond Nnamdi Kanu. It is the credibility of the Nigerian legal system and its capacity to deliver justice without fear or favour.”
Conclusion
Ten years after his first arraignment, Kanu’s case remains a symbol of Nigeria’s enduring struggle with questions of justice, power, and identity. Whether his latest move represents a fresh start or a fatal misstep, only time — and the courts — will tell.
This report draws from a publication by Alex Enumah in THISDAY titled “As Leader of the Proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu Sacks All His Legal Representatives in His Alleged Terrorism Trial,” and is published here with due acknowledgment to the original author and source.
