On October 23, 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), stunned observers by dismissing his entire legal team and announcing his intention to personally conduct his defense in his ongoing terrorism trial before Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

This unexpected move, confirmed by Kanu himself in open court, marked a dramatic turning point in one of Nigeria’s most closely watched trials. The development left both his lawyers and the presiding judge momentarily stunned as the case took an unforeseen procedural twist.

Defense Team Withdraws

The withdrawal was formally announced by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), Kanu’s lead counsel, who informed the court that the defense team would be stepping down following the defendant’s decision to represent himself. Other members of the senior legal team including Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Joseph Akubo (SAN), Paul Erokoro (SAN), and Emeka Etiaba (SAN) all withdrew from the case.

Hon. Obi Aguocha, a Member of the House of Representatives, who attended the hearing, described Kanu’s decision as extraordinary but lawful, citing Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which allows an accused person to conduct their own defense.

Aguocha, speaking to ARISE News, emphasized the constitutional requirement that defendants be given “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defense” as outlined in Section 36(6)(b). He criticized what he called the “government’s rush to conclude the trial,” pointing out that while the prosecution had a decade to prepare its case, Kanu was granted just five days to mount his defense, a disparity he labeled “deeply unjust in a capital offense with national security implications.”

He also raised concerns about the lack of confidentiality in Kanu’s communication with his lawyers, alleging that court-approved meetings in Court Seven which contains surveillance cameras and audio recording devices could be monitored by state agents, mirroring the conditions at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility where Kanu is held.

Allegations of Judicial Bias and Contempt

Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, one of Kanu’s former lawyers, characterized the session as further evidence of “state-engineered persecution.” He accused the government of ignoring the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 judgment, which discharged and acquitted Kanu of all charges.

According to Ifedi, the Supreme Court of Nigeria only permitted the Federal Government to refile charges, not to continue detaining Kanu indefinitely. “His continued incarceration,” Ifedi asserted, “is a blatant act of contempt against the appellate ruling.” Citing the landmark English case Hadkinson v. Hadkinson (1952), he reminded the court that “a party in contempt cannot be heard until they obey an existing court order.”

Dispute Over Legal Framework

Kanu also raised a fundamental jurisdictional objection, arguing that his trial was being conducted under repealed legislation — namely, the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act 2013 and Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) 2004 — instead of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, which replaced them.

Ifedi criticized Justice Omotosho’s decision to defer ruling on the jurisdictional issue until after the trial’s conclusion, calling it “a dangerous precedent that undermines fair hearing.” He noted that by proceeding under outdated laws, the court risked “invalidating the entire proceedings.”

The Road Ahead

This latest courtroom twist has added new complexity to a case that has long polarized Nigerian politics and international human rights discussions. Kanu’s decision to represent himself could expose him to significant procedural risks, but it also underscores his determination to challenge what he and his supporters view as a politically motivated prosecution.

Observers believe that how the court manages this phase — including whether it upholds constitutional guarantees of fair hearing — will have profound implications not just for Kanu’s fate, but for Nigeria’s rule of law and judicial credibility before global observers such as Amnesty International.