Biafra separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu finally complied with the Federal High Court in Abuja’s order to open his defence in the terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

Kanu, who had previously resisted proceeding with his defence, began filing his documents on Friday directly in the courtroom, following instructions from Justice James Omotosho.

The judge had earlier directed that the court’s registry be temporarily moved into the courtroom to accommodate Kanu’s complaints and ensure he could complete the filing process without further delay.

Speaking in court, Federal Government counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) confirmed he was ready to receive Kanu’s defence submissions and respond as required.

While Kanu was still in the process of submitting his documents, Justice Omotosho temporarily adjourned proceedings for an hour to allow the filing to continue uninterrupted.

Before now, Kanu had consistently refused to open his defence, insisting that the prosecution first clarify which specific terrorism law he was alleged to have breached before he could respond.

Justice Omotosho after waiting for Kanu to open his defence, announced adjournment till November 20 for judgment.

The step by step process as witnessed in the court:

Justice James Omotosho stood down the matter after the prosecutor, Adegboyega Awomolo, applied for a stand down to allow Mr Kanu file the document.

The development occurred shortly after the case was called, and Mr Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), alleged that officials of the State Security Service (SSS), where he is being detained, did not allow him to file the process in his defence.

“My lord, I don’t know how to say this. I have a process here to file, which has not been allowed for the last three days.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, declined a request by the Department of State Services (DSS) to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, in his ongoing defamation trial.

Sowore is being prosecuted over comments made on social media in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”

The Federal government argues the statement contravenes provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024, as well as sections of the Criminal Code, and is capable of inciting public disorder.

Director of Public Prosecutions, M. B. Abubakar, told the court that Sowore’s remarks amounted to cyber harassment and criminal defamation under Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes Act and Sections 59 and 375 of the Criminal Code.

He insisted the activist must be held accountable for using digital platforms to malign the President.

During proceedings, counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, urged the court to issue a bench warrant, arguing that Sowore had been duly served with the charge and hearing notice but failed to appear.

He described the absence as a clear disregard for judicial authority.

According to Kehinde, allowing such conduct to go unchallenged could undermine the court’s authority — particularly in politically sensitive matters involving state institutions.

He also dismissed a letter submitted by activist Deji Adeyanju seeking an adjournment on Sowore’s behalf, describing it as an attempt to delay the case.

However, presiding Judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, declined the request. He ruled that it would be premature to issue a bench warrant because the second defendant in the matter, X Corporation (formerly Twitter), had not been properly served with the charge sheet.

The judge held that due process in serving all defendants must be completed before any coercive orders can be considered.

Counsel to X Corporation, Christabel Ndiokwelo, confirmed that although her client received the hearing notice, the formal charges had not yet been served.

Counsel to META (Facebook), Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), was also in court.

He aligned with the government’s position, describing Sowore’s absence as deliberate. He also dismissed Sowore’s claims that social media companies were collaborating with the DSS to censor him as “baseless and diversionary.”

Justice Umar adjourned the case to December 2, 2025, for proper arraignment, and directed that fresh hearing notices and charge documents be served on all parties to prevent further delays.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, gave the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, until November 5 to defend the terrorism charges filed against him or risk waiving his right to do so.

The trial judge, Justice James Omotoso, advised Kanu to consult legal practitioners experienced in criminal law to assist with his defence or to formally appoint a lawyer to represent him in court.

Justice Omotosho’s decision followed Kanu’s continued refusal to open his defence, insisting that there was no valid charge pending against him.

Kanu, who represented himself during Tuesday’s proceedings, told the court that he would not return to detention unless the charges against him were properly presented.

He argued that his continued detention by the Department of State Services was unlawful, maintaining that he had not breached any known law.

He also accused the court of disregarding the Supreme Court’s judgment which, according to him, condemned his extraordinary rendition from Kenya.

He demanded that the trial judge immediately discharge him from custody.

When reminded that the Supreme Court had ordered a fresh trial, Kanu maintained his position that the terrorism charge was invalid and incompetent.

Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, he argued that there was no existing law creating a terrorism offence in Nigeria.

“In Nigeria today, the Constitution is the supreme law. There is no valid charge against me. I will not go back to detention today. The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act has been repealed. I cannot defend myself under a repealed law,” Kanu said.

He further challenged any lawyer to show him a valid charge, urging the court to “take judicial notice” of what he claimed was the repeal of the terrorism law.

“I cannot be tried under a law that has been repealed. Prosecuting me under such a law is a violation of my fundamental rights,” he insisted.

After several attempts to persuade him to enter his defence, Justice Omotosho adjourned proceedings until November 5, 2025, giving Kanu the final opportunity to either defend the charge or forfeit his right to do so.

During the session, counsel for the Federal Government, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), informed the court that some documents served on him by Kanu were unsigned and not endorsed by the court, arguing that they held no evidential value.