A legal expert has explained that the prosecution deliberately chose silence as a courtroom strategy during objections raised by Nnamdi Kanu in his ongoing trial. According to the expert, this approach was not accidental but a calculated legal move aimed at avoiding unnecessary arguments that could slow down proceedings or strengthen the defence’s position.

The expert noted that in some cases, prosecutors may decide not to respond immediately to objections when they believe the court is already aware of the legal issues involved. By remaining silent, the prosecution allows the judge to make a ruling based strictly on the law, rather than turning the courtroom into a prolonged debate that may favour the defence.

He added that silence can also be used to prevent giving the defence additional material to challenge or appeal against later. In high-profile cases like that of Nnamdi Kanu, every word spoken in court can carry weight, making restraint a tactical decision rather than a sign of weakness.

The legal analyst, however, stressed that while silence can be effective, it must be used carefully. If overused, it may create public misunderstanding or raise concerns about transparency. He advised that the prosecution must balance legal strategy with clear communication to maintain public confidence in the judicial process.