Nnamdi Kanu, jailed currently serving a life sentence on the verdict of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who jailed him for terrorism on November 20, 2025, has again given notice that he might be defending himself after he took the matter upstairs at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Kanu, who file his appeal on Wednesday, directly challenged Omotosho’s verdict, saying it was fraught with judicial errors, legal inconsistencies and abuse of his fundamental rights, especially to fair hearing, urging the appellate court to intervene in the matter and set him free.
For instance, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), had maintained that Omotosho erred in law by failing to resolve the procedural and competence consequences of the foundational disruption of the original trial process in September 2017 (Operation Python Dance II), thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”
Stressing the details of the incident in the particulars of the error, Kanu told the appellate court that in September 2017, his residence at Afara-Ukwu was invaded during ‘Operation Python Dance II’ by Nigerian State agents, adding: “The said operation resulted in deaths and destruction and triggered disruption of the earlier proceedings.
“The Appellant’s case thereafter proceeded in a manner that required the trial court to first determine the legal effect of that foundational disruption on competence. The trial court proceeded to take evidence and deliver judgment without first resolving the foundational competence implications arising from the said State action. The judgment of conviction was delivered on 20 November 2025 notwithstanding the unresolved foundational competence issues.”
Arguing that his objection which was supported by affidavit evidence, challenged the competence of the proceedings on threshold jurisdictional grounds, he added: “Justice Omotosho equally erred in law by failing, refusing or neglecting to hear and determine the Appellant’s pending Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the proceedings before proceeding to trial and judgment.
“The Learned Trial Judge did not hear or determine the objection. The court proceeded with evidence and delivered judgment on 20 November 2025 while the objection remained pending and undetermined.”
On another ground, the IPOB leader, argued that the trial judge proceeded to judgement and convicted him when his pending bail application remained undetermined, thereby affecting the fairness of the process, apart from erring in law by imposing sentence without taking his allocutus and by imposing excessive and/or unlawful sentences without considering relevant mitigation factors.
His words: “Upon conviction, the Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to address the court in mitigation (allocutus). Sentence was imposed without allocutus. The court did not consider relevant mitigation or sentencing factors.”
Aside from praying the Court of Appeal to quash his conviction on all the counts in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu, who applied for an order setting aside the sentences/punishment imposed on him by the High Court, directly prayed for: “An Order of the Honourable Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the Appellant in respect of all the counts in charge No.FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.”
Stressing the possibility of his defending himself, which he said meant he would be physically present to conduct his matter, he told the appellate court: “I desire to put my case and argument into writing and also adopt my argument orally in the court on the hearing of the appeal.”