Drama as NNAMDI KANU Disowns counsel in Court
A mild commotion erupted in court on Tuesday during the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), as Kanu publicly disowned a lawyer claiming to represent him. The courtroom theatrics unfolded against the backdrop of Kanu's terrorism-related charges.
At the commencement of proceedings, the presiding judge brought to the attention of all parties a letter purportedly from one Charles Ude, asserting his role as counsel on record for the defendant, Nnamdi Kanu. However, Kanu's defense legal team vehemently denied any knowledge of Charles Ude, a stance that Kanu himself emphatically affirmed. Kanu reiterated that Chief Mike Ozekhome remained his sole and recognized counsel.
Further adding to the organizational challenges within the defense camp, the court addressed the issue of the overcrowded defense team. Citing a prior agreement aimed at streamlining proceedings, the judge announced that only 16 of the 26 lawyers listed as part of the defense team would be permitted to participate actively in the trial. The judge issued a stern warning that if decorum and order were not maintained, he would not hesitate to move the proceedings entirely online, leveraging available virtual facilities. “I don’t want to be pushed to take the case virtually; we have the facility,” the judge cautioned.
A separate and potentially more serious incident involved a woman identified as Favour Kanu. The judge recounted that during a previous court sitting, Favour Kanu had been accused of recording the proceedings and subsequently publishing restricted content online. The judge noted that he had previously cautioned her regarding this behavior, opting to refrain from charging her with contempt of court at the time.
In a dramatic turn, Nnamdi Kanu, in an emotional and heartfelt plea, appealed to the judge for leniency and forgiveness on behalf of Favour Kanu. Quoting scripture, Kanu admitted, “I owe them an apology,” expressing his regret for her actions.
When called upon to address the court, Favour Kanu claimed ignorance of the fact that the court was still in session at the time of the alleged recording. She stated that she had immediately ceased recording as soon as she received the judge's initial warning. “I didn’t know the court was still sitting. The moment you cautioned me, I stopped because it was a livestream,” she said.
After carefully considering both explanations, the judge opted to temporarily excuse Favour Kanu from attending the next three court sittings. However, the judge reiterated the paramount importance of maintaining order and showing due respect for the court’s process. “We must do things properly. Justice will be done,” he declared.
In other legal matters, lead prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, raised concerns regarding a motion served on the prosecution team requesting the release of certain exhibits that had been previously tendered in court as evidence. Awomolo clarified that the prosecution only objected to the release of non-perishable items, implying a willingness to release other types of exhibits.
During the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, identified only as AAA, the defense counsel, Agabi, subjected the witness to a rigorous questioning regarding his understanding of the charges against Nnamdi Kanu and previous rulings in the case. The witness admitted to having limited knowledge of the details surrounding the 15-count charge, including the fact that several counts had reportedly been struck out by the court.
The witness acknowledged an awareness of IPOB’s alleged role in enforcing the controversial Monday sit-at-home orders, an issue that the defense suggested was connected to charges that had already been dismissed. Agabi repeatedly emphasized that numerous serious terrorism-related allegations, including the disruption of elections and attacks on federal property, were among the charges
that had been struck out by the court. The prosecution witness admitted that he was largely unaware of these specifics.
During re-examination, Awomolo sought to clarify the witness’s understanding of the term “agitation” in the context of Nnamdi Kanu’s actions and statements. The witness responded that, in his understanding, Nnamdi Kanu was advocating for the secession of certain parts of Nigeria.