By Abdul Lauya
Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has dismissed his legal team and declared his intention to defend himself in court.
The decision, confirmed by sources familiar with his ongoing trial, marks a fresh and controversial turn in his long-running legal confrontation with the Nigerian government.
Kanu, who is not a lawyer, holds degrees in Political Science and Economics from the London Metropolitan University.
By choosing to represent himself, he exercises a constitutional right under Section 36(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, which allows any accused person to conduct their own defence or engage counsel of their choice.
While legally permissible, the move carries serious implications in a complex case involving charges of treasonable felony and terrorism, offences that demand technical understanding of criminal law and procedure.
Legal experts warn that self-representation in such high-stakes trials is a precarious gamble that could expose the defendant to procedural traps and weaken his overall defence.
Kanu will now be responsible for cross-examining prosecution witnesses, tendering exhibits, raising objections, and delivering his own legal arguments before the court.
Although judges may grant limited procedural latitude to defendants representing themselves, they are still bound by strict rules of evidence and court decorum.
In a fresh twist, Kanu reportedly refused to open his defence at the resumed hearing, insisting that the Federal Government has no case against him.
This defiant stance further complicates the legal dynamics of the trial, as it suggests an outright rejection of the court’s premise and the prosecution’s evidence.
Legal observers describe this as a high-risk strategy that could either highlight perceived weaknesses in the government’s case or backfire if the court interprets it as non-cooperation.
Eye Reporters reports that by refusing to proceed, Kanu effectively challenges the prosecution to justify its charges beyond reasonable doubt without his active participation, a move that, while symbolically powerful, may limit his ability to mount a substantive defence should the court proceed regardless.
Analysts believe the decision reflects both legal defiance and political symbolism, suggesting a calculated effort by Kanu to protest what he perceives as bias in the judicial process.
Others interpret the move as a strategic attempt to reclaim control of his courtroom narrative and challenge the legitimacy of the proceedings against him.
Either way, Kanu’s choice underscores the legal and strategic risks inherent in self-representation, particularly in politically charged prosecutions.
In past political trials, self-defence has often doubled as both a legal and moral statement.
The late Ken Saro-Wiwa used his courtroom appearances to denounce state repression, turning his trial into a global rallying point rather than a legal plea.
Similarly, Nelson Mandela defended himself during the Rivonia Trial, transforming the courtroom into a stage for political resistance that echoed far beyond South Africa.
Whether Kanu’s decision will achieve similar symbolic impact, or falter under Nigeria’s judicial structure, remains uncertain.
What is clear, however, is that his case once again blurs the line between law, politics, and conscience, posing a stern test to both his resolve and the credibility of Nigeria’s justice system.
For advert placement and inquiries, publication of press releases, and news coverages, please call: Phone: 08052898434 Email: editor@eyereporters.com, click here to view the advert rates.
