•Convicted IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu
The legal team of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has said lawyers across multiple jurisdictions are preparing a coordinated legal challenge against his conviction in order to overturn his conviction.
The team described the judgment that handed Kanu life imprisonment as constitutionally and jurisdictionally defective, reports Daily Independent.
In a detailed brief by one of the legal teams, Njoku Jude Njoku Esq, and shared with journalists today, the lawyers argued that the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Omotosho, convicted Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, a statute they said had been repealed before judgment was delivered and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
Relying on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, they maintained that no person can be convicted for an offence not defined by a law in force at the time of trial and conviction.
They also cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act and the Supreme Court decision in NNPC v. Fawehinmi, arguing that courts are required to take judicial notice of repealed statutes, and that failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction.
The defence further claimed that Justice Omotosho had acknowledged on record that conviction under a repealed law would be unlawful but later reversed that position in the final judgment.
According to them, this amounted to judicial estoppel, citing Ogoejeofo v. Ogoejeofo, and constituted what they described as a constitutional ambush, particularly as Kanu was unrepresented at the time.
They also faulted the court for deferring determination of jurisdictional objections until judgment, contrary to the principle in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim that jurisdiction must exist before a court can take any step in a matter.
By proceeding with the trial without first resolving jurisdiction, the defence argued, every step taken thereafter was a nullity.
On the applicable law, the lawyers criticised the court’s reliance on a savings clause to sustain prosecution under a repealed statute, arguing that “savings clauses are intended only to manage lawful transition, not to preserve extinguished laws.”
They contended that “the judgment improperly blended provisions of repealed and extant terrorism statutes,creating what they described as “a fictional hybrid law unknown to Nigerian criminal jurisprudence.”
Addressing the substance of the charges, the defence maintained that the alleged “offences were based on broadcasts made from the United Kingdom” and that “Nigerian criminal jurisdiction is territorial unless expressly expanded by statute.
They argued that the prosecution failed to establish the statutory requirements for extraterritorial jurisdiction, including proof of double criminality under UK law, as required by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.
They also said “no evidence was led to show that the alleged broadcasts were received, heard or acted upon in Nigeria.”
The defence further revisited Kanu’s arrest, insisting that “he was abducted from Kenya rather than lawfully extradited.”
They said “no extradition request was made, no Kenyan court authorised his transfer,” and that “Kenyan courts have since declared the rendition illegal.”
According to them, “Nigerian courts cannot derive jurisdiction from an unlawful arrest or benefit from executive illegality,” citing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Supreme Court decision in Abacha v. Fawehinmi.
They added that “reliance on the doctrine of male captus bene detentus could not cure” what they described as “fundamental statutory and constitutional violations,” noting that “Nigerian law prescribes extradition procedures rather than abduction.”
According to the defence, “Lawyers in several countries are now reviewing the case with a view to challenging the conviction through domestic appeals, constitutional actions and international legal mechanisms.”
They argued that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors – ranging from prosecution under a repealed law and failure to determine jurisdiction, to extraterritorial defects and illegal rendition – renders the conviction unsustainable.
“The only lawful outcome, in our view, is the discharge and acquittal of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” the defence said.
