The courtroom drama surrounding Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), took another twist on Wednesday, as the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) panel assigned to assess his health status has yet to deliver its much-anticipated report.
Kanu, who has been in custody and standing trial for terrorism-related charges, remains at the centre of a heated legal and political storm. But now, his wellbeing — not just his words— is taking centre stage.
A Judge’s Concern for Health Over Headlines
In a move that surprised many, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja had on September 26 directed the NMA President to assemble a team of medical experts.
Their mission? To independently examine Kanu and determine whether he is medically fit to continue standing trial.
The order wasn’t just procedural — it signaled growing concern about whether Kanu’s detention conditions might be affecting his health and, by extension, the fairness of his ongoing trial.
Panel Still “Investigating”
But when court reconvened on October 8, Prosecuting Counsel Suraj Sa’ada (SAN) delivered an anticlimactic update:
“The medical panel is still working. They haven’t concluded their assignment,” he told the court.
In other words, the verdict on Kanu’s health is… still pending.
Sa’ada pleaded with the court to grant the NMA more time — specifically, one more week — to wrap up their investigation and submit a formal report.
Defence Plays It Cool
Interestingly, Kanu’s lead defence counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), didn’t kick against the delay — a rare moment of consensus in a courtroom that has seen its fair share of fiery exchanges.
And so, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter to October 16, leaving Nigerians — and the international observers closely watching this case — waiting once again.
The Days Ahead
As October 16 approaches, all eyes will be on the NMA panel. Will their report bring clarity or more confusion? Will Kanu be declared fit to stand trial — or will his health become a fresh legal battleground?
Either way, this case continues to blur the lines between law, politics, and human rights — and it’s far from over.
