The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday adjourned the terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), until Friday, October 24, after the separatist leader dismissed his entire legal team and declared his intention to represent himself.
The proceedings were stalled after Kanu’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), announced that he and other Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) on the team were withdrawing from the case.
Agabi explained that their decision followed Kanu’s insistence on taking over his defense.
“The defendant has taken this case back from us, and we respect that,” Agabi told the court.
Other SANs who withdrew include Onyechi Ikpeazu, Joseph Akubo, Paul Erokoro, Emeka Etiaba, and one unnamed member of the team.
Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the case, sought clarification directly from Kanu after Agabi’s announcement.
Kanu confirmed he had sacked all his lawyers, insisting he was “ready and willing” to handle his defense personally.
Following that confirmation, Justice Omotosho directed other members of Kanu’s legal team who were not SANs to vacate the courtroom immediately.
The judge then asked Kanu to open his defense, but the IPOB leader instead began to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him a claim the judge promptly overruled.
At that point, Ikpeazu (SAN) briefly intervened, noting that the defense team’s withdrawal took effect only that morning.
He urged the court to grant Kanu additional time to “compose himself” for self-representation.
Justice Omotosho agreed and adjourned the case to Friday to allow Kanu to prepare.
Kanu’s decision to dismiss his high-profile legal team marks a new twist in his protracted trial.
The IPOB leader faces terrorism and treasonable felony charges stemming from his campaign for Biafra’s independence.
He has been detained by the Department of State Services (DSS) since 2021, following his controversial re-arrest abroad and extradition to Nigeria.
The development has sparked fresh debate about his legal strategy and its implications for one of Nigeria’s most politically sensitive cases.