Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 for judgment in the terrorism trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.

Justice Omotosho set the date on Friday after ruling that Kanu had failed to open his defence within the six days allocated to him by the court.

The judge held that, having been granted ample opportunity to conduct his defence, Kanu could not claim to have been denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing.

Earlier, the court had directed the embattled IPOB leader to open his defence on November 5 or be deemed to have waived his right to do so. Justice Omotosho gave the order after Kanu failed, for the fourth consecutive day, to begin his defence following the prosecution’s closure of its case and the court’s dismissal of his no-case submission.

The case had earlier been adjourned on October 27 to November 4 for Kanu to either file his final written address or open his defence.

At the resumed proceedings, Kanu—who is representing himself—told the court that he had not filed the final written address as directed but had instead submitted a motion and a supporting affidavit.

He maintained that he would not enter any defence because, according to him, there was no valid charge before the court under any extant law. Kanu further demanded his immediate release, insisting that there was no lawful basis for his continued detention or trial.

In response, the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), challenged the competence of the fresh court documents filed by Kanu, arguing that they were improperly filed.

Mr. Awomolo urged the court not to indulge the defendant any further, alleging that Kanu was merely attempting to delay proceedings. He therefore prayed the court to treat the newly filed documents as Kanu’s final written address, allow both parties to adopt their final addresses, and adjourn for judgment.

In his ruling, Justice Omotosho held that Kanu’s recently filed documents were in order and would be considered during judgment. He, however, noted that since the defendant is not a lawyer, the court had taken judicial notice of this fact and would allow him the opportunity to consult legal counsel for any necessary assistance.