The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking the dismissal of all charges against him and his immediate release from custody.
In the motion, dated 30 October 2025 and titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support,” Kanu argued that there is no valid charge against him under any existing law in Nigeria, insisting that the case currently before the court is “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
Representing himself, Kanu filed the application under Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, as well as the Evidence Act 2011 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA).
He contended that the prosecution relied on repealed and non-existent laws, including the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA)—repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which was replaced by the TPPA 2022.
READ ALSO: Court adjourns Nnamdi Kanu’s trial as defence team withdraws
According to Kanu, this reliance violates Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which prohibits the trial of any person for an offence not defined under an existing law. He therefore urged the court to strike out all charges against him, maintaining that they do not constitute any recognised offence under Nigerian law.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), he argued that lower courts must take judicial notice of repealed statutes under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, and failure to do so renders ongoing proceedings void.
Kanu further asserted that some of the alleged offences were committed in Kenya, contrary to Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which requires certification by a court in the foreign country before such acts can be tried in Nigeria. He said this omission strips the court of extraterritorial jurisdiction and breaches Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Quoting past judgments such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, Kanu maintained that any conviction based on repealed or invalid laws is unconstitutional.
He asked the court to compel the prosecution to respond to his motion within three days and to deliver its ruling on or before 4 November 2025.
Kanu stated that his motion raises pure questions of law and constitutional interpretation, hence does not require a supporting affidavit.
