The Chairman of Mobin Barrister Emeka Emekesiri has a question as to who deceived Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that made him not to put up a defense during his trial. This comes after the judgement of life imprisonment was given to the self acclaimed leader of IPOB Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
On Thursday 20 November 2025, a judgement of life imprisonment was given to the Leader of Indigeneous People of Biafra Mazi nnamdi Kanu.
Emeka Emekesiri stated this on his Facebook page ” As I observed the proceedings, initially Nnamdi Kanu was doing very well in the case. When he applied to summon 23 or 28 witnesses including Gen. Theophilus Danjuma to testify in support of his defence, the Judge granted it and signed the Subpoena (witness Summons).
Suddenly, Nnamdi Kanu turned around and said he would not file a defence because there was no valid charge against him. The reason he gave was that the Terrorism Law of 2013 had been repealed. Who advised him not to file a defence and call his witnesses?
In criminal proceedings, what an accused person needs to do to win the case is to create a little doubt against the Prosecution.
There are two elements of a crime that must be proved before a Judge can give judgement. They are described as “Actus Reus and Mens Rea”.
If Nnamdi Kanu had brought General Danjuma as his witness to confirm that he, Gen. Danjuma, gave the advice that every community should defend itself because the Nigerian Government had failed to defend the citizens, it would have helped Nnamdi Kanu’s case.
Nnamdi Kanu would have said that he created the ESN based on the advice of General Danjuma with the intent of defending his community. Once the intent is proved to be genuine, the pendulum and scale of justice will swing a little to his side. The law is that any little doubt should be resolved in favour of the accused person to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately, Nnamdi Kanu did not produce this evidence that would have saved him. The worst thing in law is that any person who says that he has a witness or evidence to provide but fails to provide it, the law says that the evidence witheld is against the person who failed to produce it.
Which lawyer advised Nnamdi Kanu that there is no valid law upon which he was charged? Is he truly a lawyer? I am surprised.