Nnamdi Kanu Files Motion to Halt Judgment in Terrorism Trial, Cites Repealed Law
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking to halt the scheduled delivery of judgment in the terrorism charge instituted against him by the Federal Government.
Kanu is currently standing trial on a seven‑count charge (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015), wherein the prosecution alleges that he spearheaded a separatist movement aimed at excising the South‑East, parts of the South‑South, and some communities in Kogi and Benue States from Nigeria. He is further accused of inciting violence through broadcasts and unlawfully importing a radio transmitter. He has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
The prosecution has since closed its case after calling five witnesses. Although Kanu initially indicated his intention to call 23 witnesses in his defence, he later withdrew the list, maintaining that he would not defend charges he considers invalid and unknown to Nigerian law.
At the last sitting, Justice James Omotosho fixed November 20 for judgment after granting Kanu multiple opportunities to open his defence, which he declined.
In his latest application, filed on November 10 and personally signed, Kanu contends that his trial under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013 violates constitutional provisions, including Sections 1(3), 36(1)–(12), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
He argues that the proceedings are a nullity, having been conducted under a repealed statute, contrary to the directives of the Supreme Court and Section 287(1) of the Constitution. He further insists that the trial court is bound to give effect to the apex court’s finding that Count 15 (renumbered as Count 7) “does not exist in law.”
Kanu also submits that the court’s failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Act, as mandated by Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, invalidates all steps taken under it. He contends that under Section 76(1)(a)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction absent proof that the alleged conduct constituted an offence under Kenyan law or was backed by a valid extradition order from a Kenyan court.
Additionally, he challenges the plea purportedly taken on March 29, 2023, arguing that it was entered under a repealed statute in violation of Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, and therefore void. He claims the reliance on forged materials in the proceedings amounts to a denial of fair hearing under Section 36(6) of the Constitution.
Now representing himself after disengaging his legal team, Kanu asserts that he was misled into pleading under a non‑existent law. He urges the court to “arrest judgment ex debito justitiae” and set aside all rulings delivered by Justice Omotosho for want of jurisdiction and breach of constitutional supremacy.
Among the reliefs sought are:
– An order halting the delivery of judgment in the terrorism trial.
– A declaration that failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Act vitiates all proceedings conducted under it.
