Federal High Court Rejects Key Evidence in Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Over Absence of Legal Representation

In a significant development in the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected crucial evidence presented by the Federal Government. Justice James Omotosho ruled that the video and written statements obtained from Kanu during his 2015 interrogation by the Department of State Services (DSS) are inadmissible due to the absence of his legal counsel during the interrogation process.TheNigeriaLawyer+5Lawyard+5Vanguard News+5Reuters+4Vanguard News+4Lawyard+4

The prosecution had attempted to admit these materials as confessional statements. However, Kanu’s defense team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Paul Erokoro, objected, arguing that the statements were made under duress and without legal representation. Justice Omotosho emphasized that, in line with Supreme Court precedents, the presence of a lawyer during the extraction of a suspect’s statement is mandatory, especially in serious charges such as terrorism. He stated, “The statements are inadmissible in light of this omission by the prosecution.” Linda Ikeji’s Blog+1TheCable+1Vanguard News+3TheCable+3Linda Ikeji’s Blog+3Vanguard News

Despite the court’s decision, the DSS has presented new evidence, including a video titled “Interview with Sahara TV,” in which Kanu is heard making inflammatory remarks. This video was admitted into evidence and played in court. Lawyard+2TheCable+2Vanguard News+2

The trial has faced multiple delays and is now under the purview of its fourth judge, Justice Omotosho. Kanu, a British citizen, was first arrested in 2015, fled Nigeria in 2017, and was re-arrested in Kenya in 2021. He faces charges including terrorism and treason. BBC+9Reuters+9Vanguard News+9

The court has adjourned the proceedings to June 13, 16, 18, and 19, 2025, for the continuation of the trial. Facebook

This ruling marks a significant moment in Kanu’s legal battle, potentially impacting the prosecution’s case and the broader discourse on legal rights and due process in Nigeria.