Court Grants Standdown for Nnamdi Kanu to File Defence Affidavit After Delays by DSS
The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday, temporarily stood down proceedings in the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to allow him file a crucial defence affidavit that had allegedly been delayed by the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice James Omotosho granted the standdown following a formal application by the DSS lead counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, who requested time for Kanu to complete the process and depose to the affidavit in open court.
The development followed Kanu’s direct complaint that DSS operatives had denied him access for three consecutive days to file documents necessary for his defence in the ongoing terrorism-related case brought by the Federal Government.
“My Lord, I have a process here to file which has not been allowed for the last three days,” Kanu told the court.
“I have my defence ready, and I’m pleading that I be allowed to file it.”
Court Queries DSS Over Filing Delay
Justice Omotosho immediately demanded clarification from the DSS officers present, questioning why Kanu had not been permitted to file his defence documents despite a pending court order guaranteeing his access to legal counsel.
A DSS officer, responding in court, said that logistical and procedural protocols guided Kanu’s movements, requiring prior written communication from his legal consultants before any external engagement.
“If the defendant wishes to file a process in court, there is a standard security procedure that must be followed,” the DSS officer explained.
“A letter from his legal team must first be approved by management to ensure his safety and that of others.”
The officer added that although Kanu had expressed intent to file on Wednesday, no formal request was received in time to process his movement.
Kanu Rejects DSS Explanation, Alleges Obstruction
However, Nnamdi Kanu disagreed strongly with the DSS account, insisting that the agency had repeatedly frustrated his attempts to depose to the affidavit even within the confines of the DSS headquarters.
“What he said is not correct,” Kanu countered.
“When I was downstairs on Wednesday to file the process, they told me to leave and said I would be brought back the next day. I even suggested that the court officers could come with the stamp, but they refused.”
His statement prompted Awomolo, SAN, to request an hour-long standdown to resolve the filing issue and prevent further disruption to the proceedings.
Court Orders On-Site Filing to Prevent Future Delays
To expedite justice and prevent recurrence, Justice Omotosho ordered court officials, including the commissioner for oaths, to bring the official court stamp into the courtroom to allow Kanu to depose to the affidavit immediately.
“The defendant will file here while we take other matters,” the judge ruled.
“Henceforth, the court registry and commissioner for oaths are authorised to attend to the defendant’s filings at the DSS facility whenever necessary.”
This pragmatic intervention allows Kanu to file legal processes directly from court or within DSS premises under judicial supervision — a move observers see as a balance between national security concerns and the constitutional right to fair trial.
Legal Background: A High-Stakes Terrorism Trial
Kanu, who faces terrorism-related charges brought under Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, was expected to open his defence in Friday’s proceedings. The case has drawn international attention given its implications for human rights, national unity, and legal accountability.
The prosecution, led by Chief Awomolo, SAN, maintains that all DSS procedures align with existing court orders, while Kanu’s defence team continues to argue that restricted legal access undermines due process.
Legal analysts note that the court’s decision to stand down proceedings — rather than adjourn — reflects a growing judicial emphasis on expeditious justice, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
BRANDECONOMY ANALYSIS: Balancing National Security with Judicial Fairness
1. Institutional Integrity and Human Rights
The court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s pivotal role in safeguarding defendants’ rights even within security-driven environments. Allowing on-site filing helps ensure compliance with Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees the right to adequate defence.
2. DSS Protocols vs. Legal Access
While DSS insists on strict security procedures for movement and documentation, the situation exposes the bureaucratic friction between security agencies and the justice system — a tension that must be managed to avoid perceptions of political interference.
3. Implications for Nigeria’s Legal System
The case once again highlights the fragile balance between counterterrorism efforts and constitutional liberties. As global scrutiny grows, Nigeria’s ability to maintain transparent and lawful judicial processes will continue to shape its international human rights reputation.
4. Legal Efficiency and Transparency
Justice Omotosho’s proactive order for in-court filing may set a precedent for similar high-profile cases where security custody complicates court access, reinforcing judicial adaptability and administrative innovation.
Conclusion: A Critical Moment in a Long Legal Battle
As the proceedings resume, all eyes remain on how swiftly the court navigates the interplay between security procedure and legal fairness in the Nnamdi Kanu trial. The latest development not only ensures procedural compliance but also reinforces the judiciary’s independence in Nigeria’s evolving democratic landscape.
In a system often criticised for delays and executive interference, Friday’s standdown — and the judge’s decisive response — could mark a subtle yet significant win for due process, rule of law, and the credibility of Nigeria’s justice system.
