The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, dismissed the no-case submission filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), signalling that the prosecution has presented sufficient terrorism evidence warranting his explanation.

The judge, James Omotosho, in a ruling, ordered Mr Kanu to enter his defence, as the prosecution has established a prima facie case against him.

The judge held that the evidence presented by the prosecution through its five witnesses was such that there was the need for the IPOB leader to provide some explanations in the offences with which he was charged.

“I have carefully gone through the evidence presented to the court by the prosecution with respect to this charge.

“The evidence all points to the establishment of a prima facie case against the defendant.

“The evidence is such that the defendant must proffer some explanations or defence to the allegation made against him, especially considering the seriousness of the offences as they are such that the life of the defendant is at stake,” the judge ruled.

The IPOB leader, who has been in the custody of the State Security Service (SSS) since June 2021, is being prosecuted by the federal government on terrorism charges.

The charges stemmed from Mr Kanu;s agitation for the secession of Nigeria’s South-east states and parts of neighbouring states as an independent Biafra nation.

The prosecution closed its case after the fifth witness finished testifying on 19 June.

But instead of opening his defence, Mr Kanu, through his lawyers, said he would rather file a no-case submission to seek the dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish any case against him to warrant him entering any defence.

But the Nigerian government’s prosecution team asked the court to throw out the application, insisting that Mr Kanu had a case to answer.

Why no-case submission was dismissed

Mr Omotosho dismissed the application on Friday but clarified that the decision did not amount to finding Mr Kanu guilty of the charges.

“This is not to say that the defendant is guilty as charged but simply that he be afforded his right to fair hearing and put in his defence before this court.

“The evidence of the prosecution has found sufficient grounds for proceeding with this trial.

“A connection of the defendant with the offences, no matter how slight, constitutes prima facie evidence and as such the defendant would be required to enter his defence to the charge or a rebuttal of some sort,” he said.

He explained that calling on the defendant to enter his defence “is simply to allow the defendant to exhaust his options for his defence and to clear every unresolved issue which may weigh on the mind of the court in reaching a final decision.”

“The defendant is still presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution still has the duty to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt,” Mr Omotosho said, citing Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, to back the ruling.

The ruling also addressed the implication of the extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021 to Nigeria to face trial.

Mr Kanu’s legal team had argued that forcibly returning him to continue his stalled trial in June 2021 had robbed the court of jurisdiction over the case.

But dismissing the argument on Friday, the judge held that no evidence of extraordinary rendition had been placed before the court.

“It is when such evidence relating to extraordinary rendition of the defendant is given on oath that the issue of jurisdiction relating to it can be considered by this court.

“Laws are not based on evidence that is not placed before the court.

“The right of a defendant to defend himself/herself is a fundamental right provided under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“Such right cannot be taken from a defendant except where a defendant expressly or by conduct waives same.

“This defendant, having not waived his right to defend himself either expressly or by conduct, and the no-case submission made by him, having been overruled, he is hereby called upon to put in his defence to the charge against him.

“The address of counsel, no matter how beautifully constructed, cannot take the place of evidence,” the judge ruled.

READ ALSO: Anambra deploys guidance counsellors to primary schools

Mr Omotosho also declined to grant Mr Kanu’s application to be transferred to National Hospital for medical attention.

Delivering ruling on the motion filed by the IPOB leader, the judge rather ordered the president of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) to set up a panel of medical experts to ascertain Nnamdi Kanu ‘s actual health status.

Mr Omotosho, then, adjourned the matter until 8 October.

The NMA is expected to present its report on Mr Kanu’s fitness or otherwise to stand trial when proceedings resume on 8 October.