Human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong has warned the self-acclaimed leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, saying he’s taking risks for abandoning his earlier plan to call witnesses in his ongoing terrorism trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
On Monday, Kanu shelved his earlier plan to call witnesses in his defence.
The court had on October 24 adjourned the case till October 27 for the IPOB leader to open his defence.
Kanu subsequently wrote to the court, indicating his intention to call witnesses and applied for witness summons, begging the court for time to study his case-file.
But when the case was called on Monday, Kanu said he had gone through the case-file and realised that there was no valid charge against him.
Effiong in a post on X said, “Kanu’s legal strategy is confusing at this point.”
He described the IPOB leader’s latest move as a “very risky gamble”.
The human rights lawyer wrote, “The Court had previously overruled his No Case Submission.
“It is no longer open to him to contend that he has no case to answer.
“There are two options that he can explore: either he opens his defence, or he rests his case on the case of the prosecution.
“He has indicated that he no longer intends to open his defence.
“My understanding of the media reports of today’s proceedings is that Kanu believes that the prosecution has not proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.
“If my assessment is wrong, then palpable confusion has ensued.
“However, the law is firmly settled that a defendant has no obligation to prove or establish his or her innocence.
“Since this defendant, Kanu, had pleaded not guilty to the charges, the court will now have to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to see whether the elements of the offences charged have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“The fact that Kanu has elected to pursue his case in this manner is not going to be construed as an admission of guilt.
“However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution team would be deemed as unchallenged, save for the evidence elicited under cross examination.
“The court will still have to determine whether on the basis of the admitted evidence, the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof placed on it in law.
“I don’t know who’s advising Kanu, or what his motivation is, but he is taking a very risky decision.”
