In a bold and meticulously argued legal motion filed before a Nigerian Federal High Court, Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has launched a comprehensive assault on the validity of the terrorism charges leveled against him by the Federal Government. The motion, which asserts that no cognizable offense exists under Nigerian law or any statute recognized in Kenya—where Kanu was dramatically renditioned from in June 2021—demands an immediate halt to his trial and detention. Kanu contends that the proceedings are fundamentally flawed, unconstitutional, and in breach of both domestic and international legal standards. This development, coming amid a protracted legal battle that has drawn significant national and international attention, underscores deep concerns over extradition processes, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the rule of law in high-profile political cases.
At the heart of Kanu’s motion is the assertion that the charges brought against him do not constitute offenses under “extant Nigerian statutes or any law recognized in Kenya.” This phrasing, extracted directly from the motion, highlights a critical gap in the prosecution’s case. Kanu, a British-Nigerian dual citizen and prominent pro-Biafra agitator, was abducted from Nairobi, Kenya, and forcibly returned to Nigeria to face trial on amended charges of terrorism, treasonable felony, and incitement. The Nigerian government has consistently framed IPOB as a terrorist organization, accusing Kanu of orchestrating violence and broadcasting inflammatory content from abroad. However, Kanu’s legal team argues that these allegations fail to meet the threshold of criminality in either jurisdiction, rendering the entire prosecution void ab initio.
The motion delves deeply into jurisdictional issues, particularly regarding counts 1 through 6 in the charge sheet. These counts, Kanu alleges, “contravene Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA 2022).” This section of the TPPA, a relatively recent amendment to Nigeria’s anti-terrorism framework, stipulates that for offenses committed outside Nigeria to be triable within its borders, a Kenyan court must first validate that the alleged acts are indeed criminal under Kenyan law. Kanu emphasizes that no such validation has been obtained, despite the prosecution’s reliance on his purported activities in Kenya as the basis for extradition and trial.
This omission, according to Kanu, strips Nigeria of any legitimate extraterritorial jurisdiction. He argues that proceeding without this prerequisite not only violates the TPPA but also infringes upon Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees the right to have one’s cause heard by a competent tribunal. The African Charter, ratified by Nigeria and incorporated into its domestic law via the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, forms a cornerstone of Kanu’s defense. By ignoring this procedural safeguard, the Nigerian authorities have effectively bypassed due process, turning the trial into an exercise of raw executive power rather than judicial impartiality.
Kanu further invokes Section 1(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, which declares the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and renders any inconsistent law or proceeding null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. “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 cognizable charge subsists against him,” the motion states emphatically. Kanu maintains that his continued detention and the ongoing trial lack any constitutional foundation, as they stem from a charge sheet riddled with legal deficiencies. This constitutional argument is not novel in Nigerian jurisprudence but carries particular weight in Kanu’s case, given the extraordinary circumstances of his rendition, which multiple courts—including a Nigerian Court of Appeal—have previously deemed unlawful.
To bolster his position, Kanu cites landmark judicial precedents that have historically invalidated prosecutions based on non-existent or inapplicable offenses. He references Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400, a seminal case from Nigeria’s early post-independence era, where the court quashed a conviction because the underlying act did not constitute an offense under the applicable law at the time. Similarly, in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, the Supreme Court nullified a conviction on the grounds that the charged offense was not recognized under the relevant statute. These authorities, Kanu argues, establish a clear principle: no individual can be tried or punished for conduct that does not amount to a crime under the law in force. Applying this to his situation, Kanu posits that the prosecution’s failure to align the charges with either Nigerian statutes or Kenyan law dooms the case from the outset.
The motion is structured as a pure question of law, obviating the need for a supporting affidavit. Kanu asserts that his arguments are “derivable from the Constitution, the TPPA 2022, the Evidence Act 2011, and the court record.” This strategic choice streamlines the application, forcing the court to confront threshold legal issues without the delay of evidentiary hearings. It also aligns with the court’s earlier directive on October 27, 2025, compelling Kanu to submit a written address on the validity of the charges. By complying promptly and comprehensively, Kanu positions himself as a litigant acting in good faith, contrasting sharply with what he portrays as prosecutorial overreach.
In a procedural flourish, Kanu urges the court to compel the prosecution to file a response strictly on points of law within three days. He further requests a ruling on or before Tuesday, November 4, 2025, emphasizing the urgency of resolving these foundational defects. Prolonged detention without a valid charge, he implies, exacerbates the violation of his fundamental rights, including the presumption of innocence and protection against arbitrary arrest under Chapter IV of the Constitution.
This latest filing is part of a broader saga that has captivated Nigeria and the international community. Kanu’s initial arrest in 2015, his dramatic jump bail in 2017 amid a military raid on his home, and his 2021 rendition have fueled accusations of political persecution. The Nigerian government under President Bola Tinubu has resisted calls for Kanu’s release, insisting on judicial resolution despite rulings from the Court of Appeal in 2022 that quashed the charges and declared the rendition illegal. The Supreme Court later reinstated the trial in 2023, citing national security imperatives, but Kanu’s team continues to chip away at the case’s legitimacy.
Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have decried the proceedings as a miscarriage of justice, pointing to alleged torture in detention and the suppression of IPOB’s advocacy for self-determination. Supporters view Kanu as a freedom fighter highlighting marginalization in Nigeria’s Southeast, while critics accuse him of inciting violence that has led to loss of life.
Legally, the motion raises profound questions about the interplay between anti-terrorism laws and extradition treaties. Kenya and Nigeria are both signatories to bilateral agreements and regional protocols, yet the absence of formal extradition proceedings in Kanu’s case—replaced by what the UN Human Rights Council termed an “extraordinary rendition”—undermines mutual legal assistance frameworks. Section 76 of the TPPA 2022 was ostensibly designed to prevent such abuses by requiring foreign judicial validation, a safeguard the prosecution appears to have ignored.
If the court entertains Kanu’s arguments favorably, it could set a precedent curbing executive overreach in transnational prosecutions. Conversely, dismissal might reinforce the government’s narrative on terrorism but at the potential cost of eroding public confidence in the judiciary.
As the November 4 deadline approaches, all eyes are on the Federal High Court. Kanu’s motion, exceeding mere technicalities, strikes at the core of constitutional supremacy, jurisdictional integrity, and the right to a fair trial. Whether the court will uphold these principles or prioritize security concerns remains uncertain, but the filing ensures that the debate over Nnamdi Kanu’s fate will continue to resonate far beyond the courtroom walls.
