Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday began delivering judgment in the terrorism trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu. The proceedings continued in Kanu’s absence after the judge described his behavior as unruly, marking a tense and dramatic day in the high-profile case that has drawn national and international attention over the years.
The court ruled that the trial would proceed without the defendant following the dismissal of three fresh motions filed by Kanu, which Justice Omotosho determined lacked merit. This decision underscores the court’s position that persistent disruptive conduct by a defendant cannot hinder the administration of justice or delay the conclusion of legal proceedings.
The tension in the courtroom escalated earlier when Kanu repeatedly interrupted proceedings, insisting that the court could not continue because he had not been allowed to submit his final written address. He accused Justice Omotosho of bias and alleged that the court lacked an understanding of the law. Kanu shouted, “Which law states that you can charge me on an unwritten law? Show me. Omotosho, where is the law? Any judgment declared in this Court is complete rubbish,” causing a disruption that briefly halted the session.
Following a short adjournment, the prosecution, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Adegboyega Awomolo, urged the court to proceed in accordance with Section 352(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. They highlighted Kanu’s repeated interruptions and persistent disruptive behavior as justification for continuing the trial in his absence, emphasizing the need to uphold the authority and dignity of the court.
The continuation of judgment delivery marked a significant moment in the lengthy trial, signaling that the court would not allow procedural stalling or misconduct to prevent the conclusion of the case. Justice Omotosho noted that while every defendant has a constitutional right to be present during trial, persistent unruly behavior could justify proceeding without them. He stressed that the courtroom is “a temple of justice and a temple of God” and cannot be allowed to be disrupted by any individual’s actions.
The judge also observed that Kanu’s conduct was not an isolated incident, referencing several prior sittings where the IPOB leader displayed similar behavior. He further pointed out that Kanu had consistently indicated he would not present a defense, reinforcing that Thursday’s session was dedicated solely to the delivery of judgment and potential sentencing, rather than trial proceedings.
In accordance with the court’s order, security personnel removed Kanu from the courtroom, restoring order and allowing Justice Omotosho to proceed with delivering the ruling. The judge’s firm handling of the situation demonstrated the court’s commitment to maintaining decorum while ensuring that justice is served in this highly publicized and politically sensitive case.
Thursday’s events have reignited discussions on courtroom conduct, the rights of defendants, and the balance between legal procedure and the need for maintaining order in high-profile trials. Legal analysts and observers continue to scrutinize the implications of proceeding in a defendant’s absence, particularly in cases with such far-reaching social and political ramifications.