Human rights lawyer, Abubakar Marshal, has defended the right of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to file a fresh objection against the terrorism-related charges brought against him by the Nigerian government.

Marshal, who described the move as “legally sound” and “founded on strong legal principle,” said that the trial of the IPOB leader is “deeply political.”

In a statement made available to SaharaReporters on Tuesday, Marshal argued that Kanu’s latest application to challenge the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was both lawful and consistent with long-established legal doctrine.

“The application of Nnamdi Kanu to file further objection to his charge is founded on strong legal principle & pedestal,” he said.

“It does not amount to foreclosure of his defence neither is it tantamount to resting his case on that of the prosecution.”

The lawyer stressed that Kanu raising such an objection at this stage of the proceedings was perfectly permissible under Nigerian law.
“It is elementary law that an objection can be raised at any time or stage of proceedings even at the Supreme Court & for as many times possible,” he stated.

Marshal explained that the trial judge was duty-bound to consider and rule on any application properly filed before the court.

“Indeed, a judge is bound to hear & rule one way or the other every application brought to him (even if he feels the application is ‘foolish’),” he said.

According to him, Kanu’s decision to challenge the jurisdictional footing of his charge is a legitimate step in his defense.
“By proposing a fresh objection challenging the jurisdictional footing of his charge, Nnamdi kanu is legally right.

“It is only upon the determination of the objection that the court can move to the next stage; If the objection succeeds, the case terminates, if otherwise, then he has to enter his defence properly,” Marshal noted.

He dismissed as “legally incorrect” the claim that Kanu had forfeited or withdrawn his defense or that he had opted to rest his case on the prosecution’s evidence.

“The claim that he has forfeited or withdrawn his defense or that he has elected to rest his case on that of the prosecution is legally incorrect with all due respect,” Marshal emphasised.

The lawyer also expressed his conviction that Kanu’s trial was more political than legal in nature, urging the government to pursue dialogue instead of confrontation.
“It is my strong conviction that the case of Nnamdi Kanu is a political case,” he said. “The state stands to gain more by striking a good deal and extracting some fantastic undertaking from him through dialogue.
“A government that is quick to grant amnesty to terrorists and negotiate with bandits should not be reluctant to find a political solution to a case that would bring stability to an entire region.”
On Monday, Kanu withdrew his earlier decision to call witnesses in his ongoing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja, insisting that there are no legitimate charges against him.
Kanu told Justice James Omotosho that after a careful review of the prosecution’s case file, he concluded that the Nigerian government had failed to establish any valid charge to warrant a defence.

Kanu, who had earlier filed a formal application to summon witnesses in his defense, told the court that the decision was no longer necessary since, in his words, “no competent charge exists against me.”

The Biafran Nation agitator argued that he had been subjected to an unjust process and that the evidence tendered by the prosecution did not in any way prove the allegations brought against him by the Nigerian government.

In response, Justice Omotosho advised Kanu to put his new position into writing and formally serve it on the prosecution team, noting that it was crucial for the court record.
Recall that Kanu earlier named former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami and several prominent Nigerians as witnesses in his ongoing terrorism trial.
Those also listed include the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike; former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd); former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd); Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu; and Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma.
Others named are Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; immediate past Governor of Abia State, Okezie Ikpeazu; former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Ahmed Rufai Abubakar; and former Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Yusuf Bichi.

Kanu has been in detention since his re-arrest in Kenya and extradition to Nigeria in 2021.

The Supreme Court in December 2023 upheld the continuation of his trial at the Federal High Court in Abuja after ruling that his arrest, though irregular, did not nullify the charges against him.
Kanu’s legal team has since continued to challenge the jurisdiction and fairness of the proceedings.
His continued detention has sparked widespread calls for a political solution from rights groups, traditional leaders, and political figures who argue that resolving the matter through dialogue could help ease rising tensions in the South-East.