Oshoma: Nnamdi Kanu’s Self-Defense Strategy Was a Major Risk

Legal practitioner Liborous Oshoma has stated that Nnamdi Kanu committed a significant error by choosing to represent himself in court. This comment follows Kanu’s recent refusal to open his defense, based on his claim that no valid charge exists against him.

Speaking in a TVC interview, Oshoma explained that while the law permits individuals, including lawyers, to act as their own counsel in criminal matters, this choice is often unwise. He emphasized that self-representation introduces substantial risks, particularly in complex legal battles.

Why Self-Representation is Risky

Oshoma pointed to the sensitive and complicated nature of the allegations against Kanu. He noted that criminal trials demand deep legal expertise and strategic handling, areas where a professional lawyer holds a distinct advantage. The intricacies of such cases are difficult to navigate without formal legal training and experience.

In his own words, Oshoma said, “When Nnamdi Kanu opted to defend himself I knew that he was certainly going to run into these kinds of problems. Even for a lawyer, even though you have the right to defend yourself in a criminal matter it is always advisable for you to allow a colleague defend you. Considering the allegation against Nnamdi Kanu I do not think it was advisable for him to have elected to defend himself.”

As detailed in the complete version, there are several key factors to consider.

The Importance of Legal Counsel

The core of Oshoma’s argument is that the decision for Nnamdi Kanu to defend himself overlooks the tactical benefits of experienced representation. A seasoned attorney can better handle procedural rules, object to improper evidence, and present a coherent defense strategy. For Nnamdi Kanu, the stakes are too high to forgo this professional advantage. This case underscores a critical lesson for any defendant facing serious charges: the right to self-representation does not always equate to the smartest legal pathway.