Detained self-acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh document which seeks to stall his ongoing trial for alleged terrorism offences.

In the fresh document, filed on October 16, Kanu queried the jurisdiction of the court to continue with his trial and prayed the court to void all proceedings in the case so far.

The document, titled: “Notice of preliminary objection to jurisdiction,” seen by The Nation, did not reflect the name of any lawyer in Kanu’s legal team as the person who prepared and filed the document.

It was however, noted that the document was signed by the defendant himself (Kanu), while the 43-paragraph-supporting-affidavit was deposed to by one Prince Emmanuel Kanu, who claimed to be the defendant’s sibling.

The Nation noted that Kanu’s new document was filed on the day (October 16) the court, before which he is standing trial for terrorism offences, fixed dates for him (Kanu) to open his defence.

The prosecution has however queried the authenticity of the fresh document filed by Kanu and demanded to know, among others, if it emanated from the defendant’s legal team.

Kanu’s legal team is headed by a former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Kanu Agabi (SAN).

In a letter, dated October 16, the lead prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) requested Agabi to confirm if the document indeed emanated from the defendant’s legal team, which he (Agabi) leads.

The letter reads: “Our law office received, today, the 16th day of October, 2025, a process titled: “Notice of preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction,” dated and filed 16th October, 2025.

“Grateful, confirm whether this process emanated from the legal team led by you, representing the defendant in this criminal trial.

“Please accept the assurances of our highest professional regards. Yours faithfully.”

At the last hearing in the terrorism case on October 16 Justice James Omotosho announced that, in view of the accelerated hearing earlier granted in the case, he would adjourn for six consecutive days, beginning from October 23, for the defence to open and close its case.

Also on October 16, Justice Omotosho announced that the medical report issued a team empanelled by the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), the examined Kanu, declared him medically fit to continue his trial having found that the ailments he complained about were not lie threatening.

Justice Omotosho, during October 16 hearing, read the concluding part of the medical report in the open court after Agabi confirmed that he received and read the report of the medical examination of his client by the NMA team.

The report concluded that the ailments that Kanu complained about were not life threatening and that he was fit to continue to stand trial.

When asked by the judge whether he had seen the report, Agabi confirmed receiving a copy, which he said he read and shared with members of his team.

Agabi told the court that the defence team had nothing against the report.

The judge thereafter requested Agabi and Awomolo to agree on the dates convenient for them. Both lawyers suggested October 23 for the commencement of the defendant’s case.

Shortly before he adjourned for the day, Justice Omotosho granted an oral application by Agabi that Kanu’s legal team be granted private consultation opportunity with the defendant, outside the premises of the Department of State Services (DSS), before the commencement of his defence.

Agabi said the defendant’s legal team was afraid that its consultation with him (Kanu) could be secretly tapped or recorded by the DSS.

Justice Omotosho also acceded to Agabi’s request that the private meeting with Kanu be held in the courtroom, during which only the defendant and his lawyers would be present. Agabi chose October 22, a day before the date set for Kanu to open his defence.

Based on Agabi’s request, Justice Omotosho ordered that the private consultation meeting between Kanu and his legal team should hold within the courtroom between 9am and 12 noon on October 22, while the trial will resume on October 23.

However, in his fresh notice of objection, Kanu is praying for the following reliefs:

*A declaration that the continued prosecution of the defendant under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013, and upon a proscription order obtained ex-parte and without fair hearing, violates sections 1(3), 36(1)-(12) and 42 of

the Constitution and Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter, and is therefore, null and void.

*A declaration that the Federal High Court’s ex-parte order proscribing IPOB, obtained without notice or hearing, while Justice Binta Nyako’s subsisting ruling (that IPOB is not a lawful society) remained in force, is unconstitutional, unlawful and cannot ground criminal liability.

*An order striking out or permanently staying counts one to eight, (save count 15) of the amended charge, dated 14th January 2022 for being barred by double jeopardy, having

the same factual ingredients as counts six-14 earlier struck out by the Federal High Court on 8th April 2022.

*An order declaring that the defendant’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya, without

extradition proceedings or due process violated Section 36(1) & (9) of the Constitution, the Extradition Act (Cap E25 LFN 2004), and Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter, thereby robbing this honourable court of jurisdiction.

*An order nullifying all proceedings conducted in breach of the defendant’s right to adequate facilities for defence, confidential communication with counsel and fair hearing, particularly the eavesdropping, seizure of legal materials, and denial of unmonitored access.

Kanu predicated his notice of objection on five grounds, the first of which is his contention that his continued prosecution “despite the binding Court of Appeal discharge of 13 October 2022 and eight-day post-judgment detention constitutes flagrant contempt of court.”

He further argued in that he could not be prosecuted on the basis of repealed laws and that his alleged extraordinary judicial rendition from Kenya robbed the court of the required jurisdiction to try him.

Kanu also complained of being allegedly denied fair hearing and adequate facilities to prepare for his defence. (The Nation)