(In Nigeria) FG: Nnamdi Kanu’s Threat to Break Up Nigeria Was Real, Not Just Talk

 FG: Nnamdi Kanu’s Threat to Break Up Nigeria Was Real, Not Just Talk

The Federal Government told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the threat by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to break up Nigeria was not just a boast but a deliberate and serious act. According to the prosecution, Kanu made a broadcast on Radio Biafra in which he declared plans to split Nigeria and create a Biafra Republic. The government’s legal representative, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, argued that this broadcast was intended to cause fear among Nigerians and incite violence against security forces.

Awomolo stated that Kanu identified himself as IPOB leader despite the group being declared illegal. He claimed that Kanu encouraged his followers to attack and kill police officers and their families, leading to the deaths of over 170 security personnel soon after the broadcast. The lawyer further said that Kanu’s threats were capable of destabilizing the country and should be taken seriously, not dismissed as boasting.

He asked the court to reject Kanu’s claim that there is no case to answer and urged the judge to order Kanu to present his defense in the terrorism trial. Awomolo insisted that the threats to break up the country and the incitement of violence amount to terrorism under Nigerian law and must not be treated lightly.

See also: (In Nigeria) Controversy Erupts as Tinubu Renames UNIMAID to Muhammadu Buhari University in Honour of Late President

Nnamdi Kanu’s lead counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, strongly contested the Federal Government’s terrorism charges, arguing before the Federal High Court in Abuja that the case lacks evidence. He stated that Kanu’s words were exaggerated by the prosecution and should not be classified as terrorism. According to Agabi, none of the five witnesses called by the prosecution testified that Kanu incited them to commit violence.

Agabi emphasized that the witnesses, all from the Department of State Services (DSS), merely obtained statements from Kanu and did not carry out any thorough investigation. He pointed out that no independent investigation report on the alleged terrorism activities was presented in court. Furthermore, he said that the prosecution has amended the charges against Kanu eight times, yet not one witness claimed to have been inspired to act violently because of Kanu’s statements.

Kanu’s lawyer argued that asking people to defend themselves is a constitutional right, and Kanu’s remarks were no different from statements made by other prominent Nigerians, including General T. Y. Danjuma (rtd). Agabi also raised concerns about Kanu’s prolonged solitary confinement, which he claimed violates international laws limiting such confinement to no more than 15 days.

He concluded that Kanu’s controversial remarks were more of a political expression or mere boasting, not an act of terrorism. Since the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, Agabi asked the court to discharge and acquit Kanu. Justice James Omotosho has set October 10 to rule on whether Kanu must enter a defense or be cleared of all charges.