Legal challenges are intensifying over the conviction of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as a coalition of lawyers and human rights advocates from within and outside Nigeria assemble what they describe as a sweeping catalogue of legal and procedural violations allegedly committed during his terrorism trial.
A comprehensive legal memorandum currently in circulation among senior advocates disputes the validity of the conviction on several grounds. Central to the challenge is the claim that Kanu was convicted under legislation that had already been repealed. According to the brief, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013—under which the trial court purportedly proceeded—had been repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022 before judgment was delivered. The lawyers argue that securing a conviction under a repealed statute directly violates Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits criminal liability except under a law in force at the time of the alleged offence.
The document further alleges that despite being repeatedly alerted to the issue of jurisdiction arising from the repeal, the trial court postponed a determination on jurisdiction until final judgment. Critics say this approach runs contrary to long-established judicial authorities, including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and NNPC v. Fawehinmi, which affirm that jurisdiction is the foundational basis of any valid proceedings and must be resolved before a court can lawfully act. The failure to do so, the brief contends, rendered the entire trial legally ineffective.
Additional concerns raised include allegations that the court improperly relied on a so-called “savings clause” to breathe life into a defunct law, and that it applied a hybrid of repealed and current terrorism statutes—an approach the lawyers say is unknown to Nigerian criminal jurisprudence. The memorandum also criticises the decision to compel Kanu to continue his defence even after the court had reportedly acknowledged that a valid conviction could not arise from an obsolete statute.
Beyond questions of domestic law, the challenge extends into international legal territory. The lawyers argue that Nigeria lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Kanu over broadcasts allegedly made from the United Kingdom. They maintain that the prosecution failed to establish the legal requirements for extraterritorial jurisdiction, including proof of double criminality or evidence that the alleged broadcasts were received in, or had direct legal consequences within, Nigeria.
The legal brief also revisits the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s arrest, describing his transfer to Nigeria as an unlawful abduction from Kenya rather than a lawful extradition. It references rulings by Kenyan courts condemning the rendition, alongside provisions of Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. According to the lawyers, Nigerian courts cannot lawfully derive jurisdiction or secure a conviction from an arrest that was illegal and in violation of international and domestic legal standards.
In total, the alleged breaches outlined—described as the first 17 in a list that reportedly exceeds 1,500 claimed infractions—are said to invalidate the proceedings from the outset. On that basis, the lawyers argue that a retrial would be legally impermissible, leaving discharge and acquittal as the only remedies available under the law.
As of the time of filing this report, neither the Federal Government nor the trial court had issued an official response to the latest compilation of allegations.
