… Kanu interrupted the proceedings, arguing that the court could not move forward because he had not yet submitted his final written address.
ABUJA, NIGERIA- The iNews Times | Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday commenced the delivery of judgment in the long-running terrorism case against Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, doing so in the defendant’s absence.
The judge directed that the proceedings continue without Kanu after describing his conduct in the courtroom as unruly.
This followed the court’s rejection of three new applications filed by Kanu, which Justice Omotosho ruled lacked merit.
Before his removal, he interrupted the proceedings, arguing that the court could not move forward because he had not yet submitted his final written address.
He raised his voice in the courtroom, demanding, “Which law allows you to charge me based on an unwritten statute? Show it to me. Omotosho, where is the law? Any judgment delivered in this court is total rubbish.”
He went on to accuse Justice Omotosho of bias and alleged that the judge lacked proper knowledge of the law.
Following a short recess, the prosecution team led by Adegboyega Awomolo asked the court to proceed in Kanu’s absence, arguing that his behaviour had become disruptive.
Justice Omotosho explained that although a defendant has a constitutional right to be present during their trial, persistent misconduct can justify the court proceeding without them.
“If a defendant misbehaves or conducts himself in an unruly manner during trial, the proceedings may continue in his absence,” he said.
He further remarked that the court is a temple of God.
The judge noted that Kanu’s disruptive behaviour was not new, as he had displayed similar conduct on several previous occasions.
He added that Kanu had already indicated he would not be presenting a defence, and that Thursday’s sitting was strictly for judgment and, if necessary, sentencing.
After issuing the order, Justice Omotosho directed that Kanu be taken out of the courtroom and then continued with the delivery of the ruling.
