•Incarcerated IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu
The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium has called for the immediate and unconditional release of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), insisting that his ongoing trial in Abuja is fatally flawed.
In a covering letter dated September 10, 2025, and signed by human rights lawyer and consultant, Njoku Jude Njoku, the Consortium outlined sixteen distinct legal infractions which it argues render the proceedings against Kanu “null and void ab initio.”
Quoting from Psalm 94:20-23, the group condemned what it described as “corrupt judges who make injustice legal,” and stressed that the Nigerian state has no lawful basis to continue holding Kanu, reports Daily Independent.
“Each infraction is independently sufficient to vitiate a criminal trial,” the letter stated. “Taken together, they present an insurmountable jurisdictional bar to any Abuja court purporting to try him for alleged offences abroad.”
Among the infractions highlighted by the Consortium are:
Extraterritorial Jurisdictional Defect:
Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 requires proof that alleged offences committed abroad would also constitute crimes in that country. “No such allegation or proof exists for Kenya,” the Consortium argued.
Illegal Rendition & Arrest Breach: Section 46(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 requires a suspect to be produced before a court in the place of arrest. “Mazi Kanu was abducted in Kenya and never presented before a Kenyan court,” the brief stated.
“This violates the Extradition Act, Cap. E25, LFN 2004, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”
Constitutional Fair Hearing Violation:
Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees fair hearing, which cannot be derogated under Section 45(2). “Rendition itself constitutes denial of this right,” the Consortium said, citing Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 1 SCNLR 1, where the Supreme Court held that any breach of fair hearing vitiates the entire proceeding.
Competence of Court:
Referring to the Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) principle, the defence team noted: “A court is competent only if the case is initiated by due process. Initiation through kidnapping is the antithesis of due process.”
Proceedings Under a Repealed Law:
The Consortium said prosecutors have relied on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which was repealed by Section 98(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. “As held in Cole v. COP (1961) and Esiaga v. University of Calabar (2002), a repealed law cannot sustain fresh proceedings,” the letter stressed.
The Consortium also pointed to international law breaches, including violations of Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
“Extraordinary rendition is unlawful under both Nigerian and international law,” Njoku said.
“As the Supreme Court ruled in Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228, Nigerian courts are bound to apply the African Charter.”
The brief concluded with a strong appeal to the international community.
“The continued detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not just unlawful, but a direct affront to the Nigerian Constitution and binding international obligations,” the Consortium declared. “We respectfully urge the global community and human rights defenders to insist upon his immediate and unconditional release.”
