The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has again begged leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to enter his defence in the ongoing alleged terrorism offences.

Justice James Omotosho, who told Mr Kanu the implication of his continuous refusal to open his defence on Tuesday, urged him to consult legal experts for appropriate guidance.

The development occurred following the IPOB’s insistence that there was no valid charge against him to enter defence.

Mr Kanu restated that there was no law under which he’s being tried in the ongoing alleged terrorism offences.

The defendant, who appeared for himself, told Mr Omotosho shortly after the case was called for him to open his defence.

The IPOB leader argued that the law under which he’s being tried was a repealed law.

He said the Supreme Court’s directive, made through Justice Lawal Garba, had not been given effect in the instant case.

He said there was no part in the ruling of the court on his no-case submission that mentioned the repealed law of the terrorism act.

He said the apex court said that the criminal code, under which he’s being tried, did not exist.

“My lord, the very charge upon which the entire ruling was based does not exist.

“Even as I came to this court today, there is no charge against me,” he said.

The prosecution lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, informed the court that on Friday, they were served with Mr Kanu’s motion on notice, which the senior lawyer referred to as “a piece of paper.”

“My lord, on Friday, we were served with a piece of paper titled motion on notice and final address of the defendant.

“What I was served is a piece of paper that carries no stamp of this court, no signature of revenue collector, etc,” he said.

He said an unsigned document is a worthless paper which does not have any efficacy in law according to the Supreme Court.

He, however, told the court that the prosecution had answered the 10 points earlier raised by Mr Kanu, including issues of the repealed law, extraordinary rendition, etc., in their final written address.

Mr Awomolo said they were ready to adopt their final written address in order for the court to adjourn for judgement.

However, Mr Omotosho said he was inclined to grant Mr Kanu an adjournment to consult legal experts on his need to enter his defence.

The judge told the IPOB leader that if the Supreme Court did not want him to face trial, the apex court would not have sent his file back to the court for retrial.

He said he was still presumed innocent despite the order to open his defence.

Mr Omotosho, who described Mr Kanu as a layman, said he was inclined to grant him another opportunity in the interest of a fair hearing.

The judge, however, threatened to foreclose his defence if he failed to enter a defence.

He said should Mr Kanu fail to open his defence on November 5, he would be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

The judge then adjourned the matter until November 5 for Mr Kanu to open his defence.

Mr Omotosho had, on October 27, adjourned till November 4 for Mr Kanu to either file his final written address or open his defence.
(NAN)