The Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium has explained in detail why the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, maintained that he has no case to answer in his ongoing trial before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
At Wednesday’s resumed hearing before Justice James Omotosho, Kanu, who appeared in person, refused to open his defence, insisting that there was no valid law supporting the terrorism charges against him.
In a public briefing note issued on Wednesday and signed by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., for the Defence Consortium, the team said Kanu’s arguments were rooted in the constitutional doctrine of legality, the supremacy of the Constitution, and the binding force of Supreme Court precedent.
According to the consortium, Kanu told the court that the entire proceedings were void ab initio because they were anchored on a repealed law—the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013—which, according to him, ceased to exist when the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 came into effect.
At the start of proceedings, Kanu had asked for a brief five-minute session with the judge in chambers, explaining that what he wanted to reveal might “embarrass the judiciary of Nigeria” if said in open court. Justice Omotosho declined, insisting that all proceedings must be conducted publicly.
Kanu then sought to adopt his Motion on Notice and Written Address, urging the court to consider his arguments that the charges were unconstitutional. But prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), objected, insisting that the court should defer the jurisdictional question until the end of the trial.
The court upheld Awomolo’s objection, ruling that the defence could only be raised at a later stage.
Kanu addressed the court nonetheless, arguing passionately that the federal government was prosecuting him under a dead law.
“The entire trial is void ab initio because it rests on a repealed law,” Kanu said from the dock. “Jurisdiction is not a procedural formality. It is the lifeblood of adjudication. Once the law conferring it is gone, everything built upon it collapses.”
He cited Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, a landmark Supreme Court case that held that a court is competent only when the matter before it is supported by a valid, subsisting law.
“There is no valid law backing these charges,” Kanu continued. “The Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 has been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Therefore, this court cannot derive jurisdiction from a repealed statute.”
Kanu supported his argument by referring to Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 734, where the Supreme Court held that when an enabling law is repealed, any right, privilege, or proceeding founded on it automatically collapses.
“A repealed law ceases to have legal existence,” he said. “It cannot be saved by judicial contrivance or implication. My Lord, a repealed law is like a dead body — no amount of judicial CPR can bring it back to life.”
The IPOB leader further read Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law.
“A repealed statute is no longer a written law,” Kanu told the court. “Therefore, any charge based on it is a constitutional nullity. Section 1(3) of the Constitution is also clear — if any other law is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail. No saving clause can revive a repealed criminal law.”
He referenced Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 and Utah v. State (2016) LPELR-40077(SC), stressing that “once the statute creating an offence is repealed, the jurisdiction of the trial court ceases immediately”.
“A court of law cannot breathe life into a statute that has ceased to exist,” he said. “To proceed under a repealed statute is to enforce a phantom law, contrary to constitutional and judicial authority.”
Kanu also accused the trial court of disobeying the binding directive of the Supreme Court in FRN v. Kanu (December 15, 2023), which, he said, held that only one of the earlier counts—relating to alleged importation of radio equipment—could potentially be tried under the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA).
“The Supreme Court was unambiguous,” Kanu said. “It ruled that the only potentially triable allegation falls under CEMA, not under the repealed terrorism provisions. A trial court cannot pick and choose which parts of a Supreme Court judgment to obey.”
Kanu then made a startling admission that even the Supreme Court itself might have erred when it described the repealed 2013 law as “extant” in its 2023 judgment.
“By the time the Supreme Court gave that judgment, the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 had already been repealed,” he said. “I have taken legal steps to bring that error to the attention of the apex court, so I will not elaborate further.”
On cross-border jurisdiction, Kanu cited Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which states that for any alleged conduct committed abroad, jurisdiction arises only if the conduct also constitutes an offence under the law of that foreign country.
“The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence from Kenya showing that anything I did there was a crime,” he said.
“Without proof of double criminality, this court lacks jurisdiction. My alleged abduction from Kenya was not only illegal but also unconstitutional.”
He added that his continued detention by the Department of State Services (DSS) without a valid charge amounted to executive detention.
“Section 35 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty,” Kanu told the court. “My continued detention without a valid charge violates that right. This is not judicial detention. It is executive detention, and it is forbidden under the African Charter, which is part of Nigerian law.”
At one point, Kanu expressed concern that the court’s refusal to address the jurisdictional issue could give the impression of bias.
“It creates the perception that this court is not neutral,” he said softly. “That it is more concerned with sustaining the prosecution’s narrative than upholding the law.”
Justice Omotosho interjected, asking Kanu if he believed the court was biased. Kanu replied calmly, “Not yet, My Lord.”
Kanu insisted he would not enter a defence since, according to him, there was no valid charge to defend.
“Even if I don’t enter any defence, my lord, you cannot convict me,” Kanu said. “You cannot convict someone without a written law as required by Section 36(12) of the Constitution. So, my Lord, our efforts here are wasted.”
He urged the court to hold that no valid or cognisable charge exists before it, declare the proceedings a nullity for want of jurisdiction, and order his immediate release.
“It would be a deliberate deviation from the Constitution and a conscious embrace of illegality for a court of law to compel someone to enter defence without any charge,” Kanu concluded. “That is a weighty responsibility no judicial officer should carry.”
Justice Omotosho declined to entertain further submissions on the jurisdictional objection at this stage.
“The issues raised will be addressed at a more appropriate stage,” the judge ruled. He also advised Kanu to consult a criminal lawyer and cautioned him to “keep his powder dry.”
Leave a Comment