The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday dismissed a no-case submission filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), ruling that he must enter his defence in his ongoing terrorism trial.

Delivering the ruling, Justice James Omotosho held that the Department of State Services (DSS) had established a prima facie case against Kanu through the evidence of five witnesses.

“I have carefully considered the evidence presented by the prosecution in this case,” the judge said. “The evidence points to the establishment of a prima facie case against the defendant. He must therefore offer explanations or a defence to the allegations, especially given the gravity of the offences, which threaten his very life.”

Justice Omotosho clarified that the ruling did not amount to a declaration of guilt but rather ensured Kanu’s right to fair hearing. He stressed that the prosecution must still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.

On Kanu’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction due to his alleged extraordinary rendition, the judge held that no such evidence had been placed before the court. “The law is not based on unproven claims. Only when evidence of extraordinary rendition is presented under oath can the court consider its effect on jurisdiction,” he ruled.

The judge further rejected Kanu’s application to be transferred to the National Hospital for medical attention. Instead, he ordered the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) to set up a panel of between eight and ten specialists—including experts in cardiology, pulmonology, urology and neurology, as well as the Chief Medical Director of the National Hospital or a representative—to conduct an independent medical assessment of Kanu.

The panel, he ruled, should inspect the DSS medical facility to determine its suitability and, if inadequate, recommend whether Kanu should be moved to the National Hospital, Abuja. The report, to be signed by the panel’s chair and secretary, must be filed within eight days from 26 September.

The matter was adjourned to 8 October for consideration of the report