Ruggedchief-comedy

08/08/2026

It's weekend

06/08/2026

24/07/2026

Gratitude

22/07/2026

Something huge is coming

05/11/2025

Here’s what’s happening in simple terms:

🔹 Kanu is saying:
“I have no case to answer. The government has not proven anything against me. So why should I defend myself?”

🔹 The judge is saying:
“It is my duty to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself, if you choose to. The trial must follow the legal process.”

This is because in criminal law:

1️⃣ The prosecution must first prove a case against the defendant
2️⃣ If they fail, the defendant can submit a ‘no-case submission’ — meaning “There is nothing to defend.”
3️⃣ The judge must rule on that submission before anything else

In Kanu’s situation:

He submitted a no-case submission

The court rejected it

So legally, the court now expects him to enter his defence

💡 Kanu’s position:

> The government has not brought any valid evidence, so I have nothing to defend.

💡 Court’s response:

> Whether you think so or not, the law says you must be given a chance to defend yourself — otherwise we cannot finish the trial.

Kanu insists there’s no case to answer.

The judge insists the process must continue.
👇
In this case who do you think that is right?