Nnamdi Kanu seeks halt to terrorism judgment, arguing that his trial was conducted under a repealed law and violated constitutional provisions
Nnamdi Kanu seeks halt to terrorism judgment, arguing that the trial against him was conducted under a repealed law and violated constitutional and human rights guarantees.
Also read: Nnamdi Kanu loses right to defence in terrorism trial
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, urging it to suspend the November 20 date fixed for judgment in the seven-count terrorism charge brought against him by the Federal Government.
Kanu, who now represents himself after disengaging his legal team, personally signed the motion filed on 10 November 2025, insisting that the proceedings were invalid as they were conducted under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013.
He contended that his prosecution under the repealed legislation contravenes Sections 1(3), 36(1)–(12), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The IPOB leader argued that the trial court failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives, which declared one of the charges formerly Count 15, now Count 7 as “non-existent in law.” He maintained that continuing the trial under such circumstances renders all proceedings null and void.
Kanu further asserted that the court failed to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Act, contrary to Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, thereby invalidating all steps taken under the defunct legislation.
According to the motion filed under Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 before Justice James Omotosho, the Federal High Court also lacked jurisdiction to try him under Section 76(1)(a)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He said there was no proof that his alleged offences were recognised under Kenyan law, nor was there a valid extradition order from Kenya — where he was allegedly taken before his rendition to Nigeria.
Kanu also challenged the plea purportedly taken on 29 March 2023, describing it as void, since it was entered under a repealed statute in violation of Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
He further alleged that the use of forged materials in the proceedings amounted to a constructive denial of fair hearing, contrary to Section 36(6) of the Constitution.
The IPOB leader urged the court to arrest judgment ex debito justitiae (as of right, in the interest of justice), and to set aside all rulings delivered by Justice Omotosho, citing lack of jurisdiction and breach of constitutional supremacy.
Kanu maintained that it would be unjust for the court to proceed with the judgment, having been “misled into pleading under a non-existent law.”
Also read: Abuja court sets November 20 for Nnamdi Kanu judgment
The motion seeks, among other reliefs, a declaration that the court’s failure to acknowledge the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act vitiates all proceedings and renders them unenforceable.
