The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a new motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging the entire terrorism‑related prosecution against him and seeking the dismissal of all charges.

What the Motion Alleges

In a document filed under case number FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu argues the current trial is void ab initio on four grounds:

* Contempt of a subsisting appellate judgment that earlier discharged him, meaning the court lacks jurisdiction.

* Failure by the court to take judicial notice of the repeal of applicable legislation, rendering the proceedings defective.

* Denial of his constitutional right to a fair hearing, including allegations of restricted access to counsel and adverse procedural treatment.

* Reliance on a purportedly forged medical report to establish his fitness to stand trial, which he says vitiates the process.

Kanu is therefore urging the court to declare the trial incompetent and terminate it forthwith.

Procedural Status

The motion was filed ahead of the date set for him to open his defence. Legal observers note that the fresh application effectively raises a preliminary objection to jurisdiction, meaning that if successful, the prosecution may be halted without further trial.

Last month, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court denied Kanu’s no‑case submission, finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against him.

Implications

* If the court upholds the motion, it could suspend or end the charges against Kanu — a significant development in a high‑profile case tied to secessionist tensions in Nigeria’s South‑East.

* A ruling in Kanu’s favour could prompt questions about the legitimacy of the trial process and the state’s approach to terrorism and political‑secession cases.

* For the federal government, a dismissal could affect how similar cases are handled, particularly those involving constitutional rights, extradition and jurisdiction.

Also Read: Why Tinubu Changed Nigeria’s Service Chiefs, Presidency Explains

* For Kanu’s supporters, this motion signals a continued strategy of contesting the trial’s legal foundation rather than just defending on the merits of the charges.

What to Watch

* The court’s response: Will it hear the motion, schedule full arguments, or refer matters back for preliminary issues?

* Timeline shifts: Whether this application delays the trial further and how that impacts both sides’ strategies.

* Political reverberations: How stakeholders in the South‑East and security agencies respond, given the wider sensitivity around secessionist agitation.