*Argues Nigerian Court Lacks Authority Over Kenya Allegations
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, currently in detention, has filed a fresh motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking the outright dismissal of all charges against him and his unconditional release.
Dated October 30, 2025, the filing, titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support”, contends that no valid charges exist against Kanu under any extant Nigerian law. Representing himself, Kanu described the charges as “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation,” asserting that they fail to constitute any recognizable offense within Nigeria’s legal framework.
The motion invokes Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Evidence Act 2011, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022. Kanu argued that the prosecution’s case relies on outdated and repealed statutes, rendering the proceedings invalid.
He specifically highlighted the prosecution’s reliance on the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004—repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023—and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022. According to Kanu, reliance on non-existent laws contravenes Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which prohibits trials for offenses not defined in existing written laws, thereby violating the principle of legality.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), Kanu urged the court to take judicial notice of the repealed statutes under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. He warned that failure to do so would render all proceedings void ab initio, citing precedents such as NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 598.
Kanu also challenged the extraterritorial elements of Counts 1 through 6, which allegedly occurred in Kenya. He referenced Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which requires prior validation by a Kenyan court to establish criminality before Nigerian jurisdiction can apply. The motion argues that without this prerequisite, Nigeria lacks authority to proceed, also violating Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004). This aligns with precedents such as Ogugu v. State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt 366).
Kanu reiterated that Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution declare any inconsistent law or judicial action void ab initio. He cited landmark decisions, including Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, in which convictions based on defunct offenses were overturned.
The motion emphasizes that it raises pure questions of law under the Constitution, TPPA 2022, Evidence Act 2011, and court records, negating the need for an affidavit. Filed in compliance with the court’s October 27, 2025 directive, it seeks an order striking out the charges and declaring no legal basis for Kanu’s ongoing trial or detention.
Kanu requested that the prosecution respond only on points of law within three days of service, pressing for a ruling by November 4, 2025, and any other orders consistent with justice, legality, and constitutional supremacy.
Key excerpts from the filing include:
This filing marks a escalation in Kanu’s legal battle with the Nigerian government, which has detained him since his rendition from Kenya in 2021 on terrorism-related charges. The court’s response could have major implications for the case, which has drawn international attention over fair trial and human rights concerns.
Leave a Comment