Federal Government Faces Setback as Court Rules on Kanu's Statement
The courtroom in Abuja was tense as Justice James Omotosho took the bench, with the spotlight fixed firmly on one man—Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). On May 29, 2025, the Federal High Court struck down the Federal Government’s main evidence: Kanu’s statements collected during his time with the Department of State Services (DSS). The government needed those confessions for its case—now, they’re off the table.
The judge’s message was clear: any statement signed or recorded outside the presence of a lawyer—especially if the accused claims it was forced—simply won’t fly. This wasn’t a wild interpretation. Justice Omotosho pointed to the Supreme Court’s insistence that anyone facing interrogation has an ironclad right to legal counsel at their side. Forget the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and its wishy-washy use of the word “may” for lawyer attendance; the higher court decided only a strict, no-loophole rule would do.
Insider Claims and Tensions in the Courtroom
Kanu’s defense team, led by Paul Erokoro, hammered this point home. They argued that while paperwork might leave wiggle room, the country’s top court didn’t. And Kanu himself added weight to their argument, describing a whole list of heavy-handed tactics allegedly used by DSS officials—he claims threats, pressure to blame major political figures, and outright denial of access to his lawyers. Kanu even named names, saying Brown Ukuaba, an Assistant Director at the DSS, delivered explicit threats if he didn’t toe their line. According to Kanu, agents urged him to sign false statements implicating former President Goodluck Jonathan and ex-Governor Rochas Okorocha in serious wrongdoing, all while his legal team wasn’t allowed through the door.
The court didn’t take these claims lightly. Instead of rubber-stamping the prosecution’s evidence, it called for a special procedure: a trial-within-a-trial. Here, the point wasn’t Kanu’s guilt or innocence, but whether his statements really were given freely or under a cloud of fear. After reviewing all sides, the judge made the call—the statements, obtained without solid proof of voluntariness and without a lawyer, wouldn’t be part of the trial going forward.
This isn’t just a routine evidence dispute. The ruling shines a bright light on deep-seated mistrust between those facing security agencies and the justice system meant to protect them. The Federal Government’s setback adds more tension to an already-loaded legal battle, where duress claims are no longer whispers—they’re now front and center in the fight. Throw in the fact that contempt proceedings are running against one of Kanu’s own in-laws for stirring up trouble in court, and you’ve got a case that’s anything but straightforward.
One thing’s clear: the Nnamdi Kanu saga is going to keep raising big questions about how confessions are taken, the power of security agencies, and whether justice is something everyone gets—or just a lucky few.