Federal High Court Judge, Justice Omotosho, delivered a landmark ruling on May 29, 2025, dismissing all confessional statements tendered by the prosecution against Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), in the ongoing terrorism trial. The decision followed a concluded trial-within-trial initiated to test the voluntariness of statements attributed to the defendant.
The court rejected video recordings and documented confessions presented by the prosecution, ruling that they were obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Justice Omotosho stated unequivocally that the statements were made in the absence of Kanu’s legal counsel and under conditions amounting to coercion, rendering them inadmissible as evidence.
This ruling marks a pivotal turn in the high-profile case, as the rejected materials had been central to the federal government’s case against the separatist leader. Legal observers described the development as a major setback for the prosecution and a significant boost for Kanu’s defense team, who have consistently argued that his rights were violated during detention.
Counsel to the IPOB leader had earlier filed a motion contesting the authenticity and legality of statements reportedly extracted during interrogations in DSS custody. The defense maintained that the statements were made under physical and psychological pressure without the presence of legal representation, contrary to the stipulations of the Nigerian Constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
Judge Omotosho’s ruling not only invalidates those statements but also diminishes the weight of the government’s case moving forward, as several charges are directly linked to the rejected confessions. The court emphasized the importance of due process and the defendant’s right to fair hearing, reiterating that fundamental human rights cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of state security.
Supporters of the IPOB leader, both within and outside the courtroom, have welcomed the decision with jubilation, calling it a long-overdue recognition of the abuses allegedly suffered by Kanu in state custody. Human rights organizations have also responded positively, citing the judgment as a reaffirmation of judicial independence in politically sensitive cases.
As proceedings continue, legal analysts predict that the ruling will significantly reshape the prosecution’s approach. The next court date is expected to test the strength of the federal government’s remaining evidence as the trial resumes without the contested materials.
