Nnamdi Kanu: Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN weighs in on terrorism conviction, lawyers’ withdrawal allegation

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Onyechi Ikpeazu, has weighed in on developments surrounding the Federal High Court’s conviction of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, for terrorism and for issuing “sit-at-home” orders that allegedly led to the closure of banks, schools, and economic activities across the Southeast, particularly on Mondays.

Ikpeazu told Nairametrics in an  interview that regardless of the sentiments trailing Justice James Omotosho’s judgment, the only legal option available to any dissatisfied party “is to appeal.”

“Rightly or wrongly, a judge has a right to be wrong; ultimately, if you are not satisfied, you go on appeal. That is the system we run,” he said, while commenting on developments around the disengagement of Senior Advocates—himself included—by Kanu.

Nairametrics previously reported that Justice Omotosho delivered the conviction while reading his judgment in Kanu’s trial on alleged treasonable felony and terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

During the trial, Kanu informed the Federal High Court, Abuja, of his decision to disengage his legal team led by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, and signaled his willingness to defend himself.

At the proceedings, Agabi informed the court of Kanu’s decision, after which Kanu confirmed, and the team withdrew from further appearance in the case.

Kanu subsequently worked with consultants—several barristers who were previously part of his legal team—until the final judgment by Justice Omotosho.

Reacting to the judgment, Barrister Maxwell Okpara, who was part of Kanu’s former legal team and later served as a consultant, had said on Arise News that “Nnamdi Kanu never sacked his lawyers; rather, the lawyers withdrew.” 

More Insights  

Sharing his perspective on the legal developments, Ikpeazu SAN, one of the disengaged senior lawyers, said the matter was a serious case requiring detailed professional attention, adding that it would be misleading for anyone to misrepresent what transpired regarding the lawyers’ disengagement.

• According to him, while the proceeding was pending and before the senior lawyers met with Kanu to prepare his defence, Kanu had already filed a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction, which he personally signed.
• He said his client had also applied for a subpoena to bring 23 persons as witnesses—moves the Senior Advocates “had no knowledge of whatsoever.” 
• He explained that Kanu was confronted with this information after the prosecution brought it to the lawyers’ attention, and Kanu admitted to filing the motions himself.

“We also asked him whether he knew the implications of that. He said yes, and that he would be ready to defend himself,” Ikpeazu added.

• He emphasized that when the case was called subsequently, Agabi announced the development, and the court asked Kanu to confirm it.

• Kanu affirmed and stated that he preferred to defend himself, he added.

• The senior lawyer expressed surprise that some people were trying to insinuate the contrary.

“And on our part, regardless of the sentiments, to me, the material thing was that we had a case to do and we felt that we had done enough to cast reasonable doubt based on the evidence led by the prosecution. 

“It was on that premise that we preferred our defense, but the client had a right to take over his case and conduct his case on his own, and that was eventually what happened,” he stressed.

• He added that the engagement or disengagement of counsel is a constitutional right, which Kanu exercised, highlighting that any client has the right to take over and conduct their case personally.

What You Should Know 

Justice Omotosho had earlier dismissed Kanu’s no-case submission, ruling that prima facie evidence had been sufficiently provided by the Department of State Services (DSS), requiring “some explanation” from Kanu.

However, Kanu refused to enter a defence and was eventually foreclosed after multiple adjournments.

• The Federal Government accused Kanu of issuing threats via broadcasts across Nigeria, warning that anyone who violated the sit-at-home order in the Southeast would face consequences, allegedly inciting insurrection against the state.
• The prosecution further claimed that, due to Kanu’s directives, banks, schools, markets, malls, and petrol stations remained mostly closed on Mondays in the Southeast.

Kanu denied these allegations in the original 2015 case, which later restarted before Justice Omotosho in 2025.

In his judgment, Justice Omotosho held that since Kanu’s defence had been foreclosed, the court would rely solely on the prosecution’s evidence and several affidavits before it.

• He stated that anyone involved in acts of terrorism is liable, upon conviction, to life imprisonment.
• The judge described terrorism as actions or threats that create fear, especially when innocent people are targeted.
• He noted that in several broadcasts—including an interview with Sahara TV—Kanu allegedly threatened harm against the Federal Government and Nigerians, including members of his “own people.” 

He quoted Kanu describing Nigeria as a “zoo” and referring to the Southeast as “Biafra,” adding that Kanu was fully aware of the implications of his statements.

• The court held that every Nigerian citizen is entitled to personal liberty and freedom of movement and that the people of the Southeast cannot be compelled to sit at home by Kanu, who holds no constitutional authority.
• Justice Omotosho ultimately sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment following his conviction for terrorism.
• Kanu was also sentenced to 20 years for Count 2.

The court ruled that he must be kept in a “protective custody facility” in any part of Nigeria and must not access any digital device except under the supervision of the Office of the National Security Adviser.

Kanu is expected to approach the Court of Appeal to challenge the trial court’s judgment.