Public Notice: Due to time constraints and the comprehensive nature of documenting all 150 judicial errors committed in this trial, this legal commentary series publishes a new installment every two to three days.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THE SCANDALOUS DOUBLE STANDARD IN PLAIN SIGHT
Justice James Omotosho’s fourth jurisdictional collapse is no mere technical oversight. It is the raw exposure of a shameless double standard rooted in the lawless usurpation of another country’s sovereign authority!
Under the foundational rule of territoriality and the comity of nations, criminal jurisdiction is strictly local. The Federal High Court in Abuja had no business trying Mazi Nnamdi Kanu—a British citizen who entered Kenya on a British passport—for acts allegedly committed on Kenyan soil, without first establishing a valid statutory bridge and proving compliance with its mandatory conditions. Justice Omotosho compounded this jurisdictional failure by proceeding to trial and conviction without ever determining whether he possessed the legal authority to try offences allegedly committed on foreign soil.
When the United States came calling for DCP Abba Kyari, Nigeria hid behind the sacred fortress of its domestic legal system, demanding strict compliance with statutory bars and beating its chest over the absolute primacy of local jurisdiction. But when the same Nigerian State abducted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenyan soil, every corresponding principle—territorial sovereignty, comity, double criminality, and lawful process—was ripped to shreds and thrown in the trash!
The Nigerian State told America: “Our domestic legal process comes first.” But it turned around and told Kenya: “Your sovereignty is optional, your courts don’t matter, and we will snatch whoever we want from your soil!”
- THE FOUNDATIONAL TERRITORIAL DEFECT AND OMOTOSHO’S FAILURE TO DETERMINE IT
Under Nigerian constitutional law and settled common law principles (MacLeod v. AG for New South Wales [1891] AC 455; Nwankwo v. State (1985) 6 NCLR 228), criminal jurisdiction is presumptively territorial:
Abuja Had No Business Trying Foreign Conduct: A court in Abuja possesses no automatic or inherent authority to police or prosecute human conduct physically committed inside the sovereign borders of Kenya by a foreign-passport holder.
Kenya Was the Mandatory First Port of Call: When conduct occurs in Kenya, Kenya’s legal order is the first port of call. Kenyan authorities and Kenyan courts must first determine under Kenyan law whether the act constitutes a crime and whether any request for surrender meets the statutory requirements of Kenyan extradition law (including double criminality under Section 4(1)(b) of Cap 77). There is no alternative route that bypasses this sequence.
Omotosho’s Fatal Omission: Justice Omotosho proceeded to trial and conviction without ever determining the threshold question of whether he possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over foreign conduct. Having physical custody of a defendant in an Abuja dock does not supply subject-matter jurisdiction over foreign acts where the statutory condition precedent—proof of double criminality under Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022—was never established by evidence.
2. WHAT NIGERIA GRANTED ABBA KYARI: THE RED-CARPET STATUTORY SHIELD
Look at the comparative standard in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. DCP Abba Kyari (FHC/ABJ/CS/249/2022):
When the United States Government formally requested the extradition of DCP Abba Kyari to face wire fraud charges in America, local Nigerian jurisdiction was activated through a pending NDLEA charge.
The Federal High Court (per Ekwo J., 29 August 2022) refused the extradition request, holding that pending local charges and statutory jurisdiction constituted an absolute barricade under Section 3(6) of the Extradition Act (Cap E25 LFN 2004). Nigeria’s own courts and domestic penal processes were treated as untouchable. The territorial state’s legal order was declared supreme. This was a textbook demonstration of territoriality and statutory safeguards weaponized to shield a favored state actor.
- WHAT NIGERIA DENIED NNAMDI KANU: STATE ABDUCTION AND JURISDICTIONAL NULLITY
The exact opposite principle was unleashed when the target was Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the host state was Kenya.
The alleged conduct took place on Kenyan soil. Kanu was physically present in Kenya as a British citizen traveling on a British passport. Under international comity and the strict territoriality of criminal law, Kenya held exclusive primary authority to determine whether its laws were breached.
Nigeria had no legal right to usurp Kenya’s sovereignty. No Nigerian statute—and no post-abduction appearance in an Abuja dock—could cure this fatal defect. You cannot manufacture jurisdiction over foreign acts through state kidnapping!
Yet, Kanu was extrajudicially dragged out of Kenya in total defiance of extradition laws. Upon arriving in Abuja, the prosecution committed a blatant deception: they dumped the original treasonable-felony framework and slapped him with a brand-new 15-count terrorism indictment under the TPPA 2022, retaining only Count 15 (importation of a radio transmitter).
Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA—which expressly commands that foreign conduct is ONLY punishable if it also constitutes an offence under the law of the host country—was completely ignored. Zero evidence of Kenyan law was presented. The Federal High Court in Abuja was completely dead on arrival—devoid of jurisdiction ab initio!
- THE STRUCTURAL HYPOCRISY IN NUMBERS AND LOGIC
The contrast between both cases exposes a system that applies law based on identity rather than principle:
In Abba Kyari’s Case (FHC/ABJ/CS/249/2022), where Nigeria was the territorial state, domestic charges and statutory bars were treated as absolute. Territoriality and statutory safeguards were strictly enforced, and the US extradition request was thrown out.
In Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Case, where Kenya was the territorial state, Kenyan sovereignty, comity, and statutory double criminality were utterly trashed, and a sham trial proceeded following an extrajudicial abduction!
When Nigeria was the requested state, it demanded royal respect for its legal order. But when Nigeria played the aggressor abroad, it treated foreign sovereignty as disposable. Physical custody secured by abduction does NOT create subject-matter jurisdiction. Nigeria used every statutory shield to protect Abba Kyari, but discarded every single one to persecute Nnamdi Kanu.
- THE GREAT CHARGE-SWAP LIE POST-RENDITION
The State’s public narrative for the Kenyan abduction was that Kanu was seized to face his ongoing trial for treasonable felony. That narrative was a monumental falsehood!
The moment physical custody was secured by force, the prosecution tossed the treasonable-felony charge into the dustbin and replaced it with fresh terrorism counts under the TPPA. An existing charge sheet is not a jurisdictional blank cheque to try brand-new allegations arising on foreign soil! An illegal abduction cannot sanitize a post-rendition charge swap, nor can it resurrect a court that had no jurisdiction from the start.
CONCLUSION
Justice James Omotosho’s fourth failure is a constitutional disaster. Abuja tried Kenyan conduct without proving statutory double criminality, while the Nigerian State violently usurped Kenyan sovereignty in total defiance of international comity.
Nigeria enforced territorial primacy to shield a senior police officer, but burned down the rule of law to snatch Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya.
There is no shortcut around lawful process through the territorial state. Kenya was the first port of call—a port Nigeria illegally bypassed. Because Nigeria had no right to steal Kenyan jurisdiction, the Federal High Court in Abuja NEVER possessed jurisdiction in the first place!
The law does NOT permit one rule for Abba Kyari and a lawless jungle rule for Nnamdi Kanu!
SHOW US THE LAW — APPLIED EVENLY!
