On Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), filed an urgent Motion on Notice before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking a stay of further proceedings in his ongoing trial. The trial, presided over by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, is scheduled for judgment delivery on November 20th, 2025.
Kanu, appearing in person, prayed the Appeal Court to prohibit Justice Omotosho from delivering judgment on the specified date and to stay all proceedings in Case No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Nnamdi Kanu. His application is anchored on pending appeals challenging several fundamental aspects of the trial, including the court’s jurisdiction, the validity of the charges, and the trial court’s refusal to hear his defense.
He specifically sought “An Order staying the proceedings of the trial court… pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.”
His appeal his particularly on the trial court’s decision on the No Case Submission, its refusal to determine the court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the counts, and the foreclosure of the Appellant’s right to defend himself by calling witnesses.
Kanu contended that despite raising critical jurisdictional questions before the trial court, the court refused to rule on these preliminary objections. He lamented that the trial court had “refused to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis the cross-examination questions to determine whether the evidence was discredited under cross examination.”
He further explained that although he had filed a list of witnesses to testify in his defense contingent upon the court first determining jurisdiction and the validity of the charges, the trial court denied this right, stating that it would only address these objections during judgment.
Kanu stated, “The trial court, while refusing to rule on the objection, foreclosed the Appellant’s right to defend the heinous allegations levelled against the Appellant.”
The trial court has since adjourned the matter for judgment on November 20th, 2025, prompting Kanu to emphasize the urgency of his application. He warned that “If the application is not granted, the Appellant may be unlawfully convicted without being afforded the opportunity of knowing the validity of the counts, the jurisdiction of the trial court and offering defense on the merit.” He described any further proceedings as potentially infringing on his right of appeal and creating an irreversible outcome.
Kanu also addressed concerns over the prolonged nature of the case, noting that the matter has lingered since 2015 and only recently commenced before the current trial court in 2025. He argued that granting the stay would not prejudice either the trial court or the prosecution and is “in the interest of justice” to allow the appeal process to unfold before any judgment is delivered.This recent motion accentuates the ongoing legal complexity surrounding Kanu’s trial, as he continues to challenge procedural and jurisdictional issues while maintaining his innocence against terrorism charges.
