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 to strike out all charges against him and order his immediate release.
In the new motion titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support” dated October 30, 2025, Kanu argued that there is “no charge or counts cognisable within the corpus juris of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” against him, describing the charges as “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
Kanu, who is representing himself in court, filed the motion pursuant to several constitutional and statutory provisions, including Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, the Evidence Act 2011, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 (TPPA 2022).
He urged the court to strike out the “purported charge” in its entirety, arguing that the prosecution relied on repealed and non-existent laws — specifically, the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022.
According to him, the reliance on repealed statutes renders the charges legally defective and violates Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which prohibits trying anyone for an offence not defined in any existing law.
Kanu further referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), in which the apex court directed lower courts to take judicial notice of repealed statutes under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. He argued that failure to follow that directive “renders all proceedings void ab initio”, citing NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 598.
The motion also raised jurisdictional issues regarding alleged offences said to have been committed in Kenya. Kanu noted that counts 1 to 6 of the charge sheet “contravene Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022,” which requires confirmation by a Kenyan court that such acts are criminal under Kenyan law before trial in Nigeria.
He maintained that the prosecution’s failure to meet this requirement nullifies Nigeria’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Quoting Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Kanu insisted that any proceeding inconsistent with the Constitution is void, declaring that his continued detention and trial have no constitutional basis.
He also cited judicial precedents such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where convictions were nullified on the basis of non-existent offences.
Kanu concluded his motion by urging the court to compel the prosecution to respond strictly on points of law within three days and to deliver a ruling on or before November 4, 2025.
He emphasized that his application “hinges on pure questions of law derivable from the Constitution, the TPPA 2022, the Evidence Act 2011, and the court record,” and therefore requires no supporting affidavit.
According to Kanu, “The Defendant/Applicant has complied with this Honourable Court’s directive of 27 October 2025 by filing a comprehensive written address asserting that no valid or cognisable charge subsists against him, either under extant Nigerian statutes or any law recognized in Kenya.”
Social Plugin