Nnadi on Kanu Witness List: Law, Politics and Court Limits

Tony Nnadi’s public legal takedown of Nnamdi Kanu’s 23 witness strategy raises questions about subpoenas compellability and politicised trials under the TPPA 2022.

Atlantic Post

October 27, 2025

8–12 minutes

Nnadi, Subpoenas and 23 Witnesses: What Kanu’s Defence and a Viral Legal Opinion Mean for Nigeria’s Courts

In a crisp and uncompromising social media post this week, legal luminary Tony Nnadi of the NINAS and Lower Niger Congress movement delivered a blistering legal opinion on the defence strategy adopted by Nnamdi Kanu the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra. Mr Nnadi argued that listing 23 witnesses who he described as irrelevant would neither help the accused nor the court.

The post has since been shared widely. It has influenced public debate about courtroom tactics’ limits. It has also shaped opinions on the nature of subpoenas. Furthermore, it addresses how high politics intersects with terrorism law in Nigeria.

This report examines the legal and political background to Mr Nnadi’s intervention. It explains the statutory framework for compellable witnesses and subpoenas in Nigeria. This framework situates the dispute in the unfolding trial of Mr Kanu. The trial has occupied the national consciousness and drawn international attention.

It assesses whether the defence strategy is legally possible. Alternatively, it examines if, as Mr Nnadi asserts, it is a manoeuvre designed to delay and politicise the proceedings.

It places the current confrontation in historical perspective. It shows how politicised evidence has shaped terrorism and secession trials in Nigeria. Procedural skirmishes have also influenced these trials before now.

The immediate facts

In recent hearings before the Federal High Court in Abuja, Mr Kanu informed the court of his intention. He plans to call 23 witnesses. These witnesses are divided into two categories.

The list reportedly included several current and former public officials. It also had foreign-based witnesses said to be in Ethiopia, Kenya, the UK, and the United States.

The judge has repeatedly told the court that the six days allocated for the defence would not be extended. He has emphasised the need to continue.

Those core facts matter. The charges the prosecution has brought were framed under the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.

The prosecution’s case as reported relies heavily on audiovisual material. It says this material captures the voice and inciting words of Mr Kanu.

If the prosecution can prove that the voice on the recordings belongs to Mr Kanu, this will be significant. It will be an important element.

Additionally, if the content meets the statutory threshold for incitement under the TPPA 2022, it might fulfill the primary elements of the case. This occurs when the legal criteria are met. This can be achieved without needing a large roster of peripheral witnesses.

What Tony Nnadi said and why it resonated

Mr Nnadi’s social media message is unambiguous. He called the effort to deploy a long and seemingly unrelated list of witnesses an exercise in ignorance. He described it as propaganda. He said that courts decide which witnesses are necessary. The power to issue subpoenas is only exercised when the court is satisfied. The court must believe that the evidence the party seeks to compel is necessary to the specific charges before it.

On that basis he argued that the 23 prospective witnesses were not necessary. The purpose was to find out whether the voice on the audiovisual evidence was Mr Kanu’s. He concluded with a blistering prediction about the likely verdict and an attack on the accused and his legal team.

That public legal view resonated for two reasons. First, it succinctly restates a basic doctrine in Nigerian evidence law. Witnesses to be compelled must be both competent and compellable. Their testimony must be relevant to the pleaded issues.

Second it came at a moment of heightened political feeling and street protest about Mr Kanu’s detention. The combination of a crisp legal frame and political heat elevated the post beyond an esoteric note intended for lawyers. It became a prism through which many Nigerians read the court calendar and the defence strategy.

Subpoenas competence and compellability in Nigerian law

The doctrine Mr Nnadi invoked is anchored in statutory and case law. The Evidence Act and established practice set guidelines. A subpoena or similar process will issue only when the court concludes the witness is necessary. The facts to be proved must also be relevant to the issues framed by the pleadings.

In practice, the Federal High Court will scrutinise motions for subpoenas carefully. They aim to guarantee these motions are not a fishing expedition. They also prevent the import of collateral issues that do not bear on the charges.

A witness must be competent to give evidence. In many cases, they must also be compellable. Otherwise, the court will decline to issue a compulsory process.

The forms and procedure for subpoenas are set out in rules of court and practice notes. There is a long line of commentary and legal guidance that warns against using subpoenas to harass or to delay.

The court carefully considers several factors where subpoenas are sought for high profile public figures. It weighs the public interest and evaluates the limitedness of time available.

The court also assesses the real probative value of the testimony. That judicial gatekeeping explains why courts routinely quash or refuse subpoenas deemed irrelevant or oppressive.

How the prosecution’s reliance on audiovisuals changes the calculus

The prosecution’s insistence that its case rests on recorded audiovisual evidence is significant. The central question is authorship or identification of a speaker. In these cases, the evidential contest often turns on forensic analysis. It also involves voice recognition, chain of custody, and admissibility issues.

If the prosecution can place the recordings before the court with appropriate foundation, then the need for dozens of collateral witnesses decreases. It becomes unnecessary to call many witnesses.

That is the legal point Mr Nnadi made forcefully in his post. It is also the point the court appears to have internalised. The court warned against dilatory tactics and refused to extend the six day window for defence.

But proving authorship in complex political trials is rarely straightforward. Forensic voice comparison in courts across the world can be contested by defence experts.

Questions about how recordings were obtained can make technical evidence vulnerable to challenge. Whether they were edited, the provenance of original files, and the chain of custody are also important factors.

That is one reason defendants sometimes seek large witness rosters. They aim not only to introduce exculpatory facts but also to sow reasonable doubt about the chain of custody. Defendants also question the context in which words were spoken.

The presence of foreign witnesses introduces logistical complexity. But, it also brings the potential for independent testimony that can be framed as unbiased.

Politics procedure and the theatre of high profile trials

This trial is not an ordinary criminal case. Mr Kanu is the leader of a separatist movement. His detention and repeated prosecutions have long been a site of bitter political contest. In that climate every procedural move becomes political theatre.

Defence tactics that would be unremarkable in an ordinary case are interpreted as protest or strategy in a secessionist trial. The state has reasons to limit avenues for delay. Critics accuse the government of weaponising terrorism law against political dissent.

International observers have warned about the risks of overbroad counterterror laws being used to stifle legitimate speech and assembly. That broader context helps explain both the judge’s insistence on timetables and the heat around Mr Nnadi’s intervention.

Where Mr Nnadi is right and where questions remain

Mr Nnadi’s core legal point is sound. Courts do not allow unfettered witness lists. Subpoenas must be justified as necessary for the resolution of issues squarely before the court.

The Evidence Act and judicial practice are clear on those points. Thus a motion to compel attendance should be based on a clear showing of relevance and necessity.

But the post leaves unanswered two important questions.

First, consider if any of the 23 witnesses have direct probative evidence. This includes evidence about the provenance, meaning, or context of the audiovisuals. The public summaries of the list emphasise prominent figures. They do not always reveal the specific facts each witness is expected to prove in the witness statement.

If any witness can speak to custody editing or dissemination of the reels then their evidence might be material.

Second the procedural posture matters. Where a defendant includes foreign witnesses who need service and logistics the court must balance fairness against efficiency. The judge’s warning about the six days is thus a practical rather than purely legal constraint.

Comparative perspectives and historical parallels

Nigeria is not unique in facing the legal tug of war between forensic media evidence and sprawling witness lists. In democracies and semi-democracies, high-profile terrorism and sedition trials have notable features. Defendants try to bring a wide range of witnesses to set context. They challenge authorship or question the motives of investigators.

Courts in other jurisdictions have responded by imposing strict timetables excluding irrelevant material and rejecting abusive subpoenas.

International human rights commentators note that while counterterror laws must be robust, they must also protect fair trial guarantees. These guarantees include the defendant’s right to call witnesses. They also protect the prosecution’s right to an orderly process. The balance between those principles is delicate and fact dependent.

What to watch next

Watch for how the court rules on any specific motions to issue subpoenas to the named figures. Will the court need detailed affidavits showing the precise evidence each witness will give before issuing a subpoena? Or will it accept a broader show cause posture?

The judge’s prior admonitions suggest the court will demand specificity. The court will treat any effort to expand the defence timetable with scepticism.

Also watch for forensic reports about the audiovisuals. If defence experts are allowed to test originals, they can offer competing analyses. The trial could shift from a procedural skirmish to a technical evidentiary contest.

Final thoughts

Tony Nnadi’s public legal rebuke of the strategy to call 23 witnesses is legally forceful and rhetorically effective. It recolours a complex legal dispute into a binary story of reasonable judicial gatekeeping versus dilatory grandstanding.

His central assertion about the court’s power to insist on necessary and compellable witnesses is grounded in statute and practice. Yet the final determination will depend on documents.

It will also rely on witness statements that have not been made public. The court must assess what is genuinely relevant to the core charge of incitement under the TPPA 2022.

The trial will not only test forensic proof of voice. It will also evaluate the capacity of Nigeria’s justice system to manage a politically charged case. This must be done without being overwhelmed by spectacle.

For now, the public has received a rare combination. It includes a pointed legal opinion. There is a dramatic witness list. The court appears determined to keep strict time.

That triangle will shape the coming days in Abuja. It will decide whether the defence’s long roll call proves essential. Alternatively, it might be merely theatrical.