Tensions ran high at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday as the trial of Indigenous People of Biafra leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu resumed, with the presiding judge chastising the Federal Government for its slow pace and lack of preparedness, according to SAVANNAH NEWSNOW.
The presiding judge stated that the Federal government appears unprepared to proceed with the case against the accused, based on their handling of the matter.
“You must pick six days within two weeks and present all your witnesses. If you fail to do so, I will strike out your case as weak,” the judge said firmly, prompting murmurs of approval and surprise from those in the packed courtroom.
The latest hearing began with the cross-examination of the prosecution’s second witness, but what was expected to be a crucial session quickly fell apart as the witness struggled to answer questions directly, repeatedly saying ‘I don’t know’ and making contradictory statements, ultimately leading to the court discharging the witness due to concerns over credibility.
The situation deteriorated further when the prosecution was unable to present its third witness, prompting the court to adjourn the matter with visible displeasure to May 28 and 29, and subsequently to June 6, 16, 18, and 19, 2025.
The judge urged the prosecution team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adegboyega Awomolo, to reduce its list of witnesses in order to expedite the trial. “We cannot continue like this, reduce your witnesses so this matter can end soon,” he stated.
On the defense side, a high-powered legal team, led by former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), was well-prepared, presenting video evidence to challenge the integrity of the charges against Kanu.
A video played in court showed Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma suggesting that violence in Orlu may have been politically motivated, contradicting his earlier accusation that IPOB was responsible.
Other videos featured DSS Director Oluwatosin Ajayi and retired General T.Y. Danjuma urging citizens to take up self-defense, but the prosecution’s witness declined to comment on these statements.
The defense questioned the witness about direct evidence linking Kanu to criminal acts, prompting the witness to admit that he had not conducted personal investigations on IPOB members and had no reports connecting Kanu to violence.
The witness dealt another apparent blow to the prosecution’s credibility by admitting he had ignored an official letter from the Attorney General’s office and failed to submit an investigation report to the court.
