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 have all charges against him struck out on the grounds that they are not supported by any existing Nigerian law.
In the new motion titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support” and dated October 30, 2025, Kanu argued that the charges against him are “a nullity ab initio” and lack any legal foundation within Nigeria’s corpus juris.
Kanu, who is representing himself in court, stated that “no charge or counts cognisable within the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” exist against him. He maintained that the prosecution relied on repealed and non-existent laws, which violates the Nigerian Constitution and renders the entire case void.
The motion, filed pursuant to Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, as well as the Evidence Act 2011 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022, forms part of his continued legal battle against the Nigerian government.
Kanu specifically noted that the prosecution based its case on the repealed Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004—which was replaced by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023—and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which was repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022.
He contended that using repealed laws “offends the principle of legality” as stated in Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which forbids prosecution for offences not defined in a valid written law.
Kanu also urged the court to declare that there is no legal or constitutional basis for his continued detention or trial. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), he reminded the trial judge that the apex court had directed lower courts to take judicial notice of repealed laws, and that any failure to comply with this directive renders proceedings void.
Furthermore, Kanu argued that counts one to six of the charges allegedly occurred in Kenya, which violates Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022. He said that the law requires validation by a Kenyan court to confirm that the alleged acts were crimes under Kenyan law—a step he said was never taken.
According to him, the omission nullifies any claim to extraterritorial jurisdiction and contravenes Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Kanu cited several precedents, including Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003), where convictions based on non-existent laws were nullified.
He requested the court to compel the prosecution to respond within three days and to deliver its ruling no later than November 4, 2025, emphasizing that his application raises “pure questions of law” and therefore does not require an affidavit.
The IPOB leader concluded by asking the court to issue any other orders deemed necessary “in line with justice, legality, and constitutional supremacy under Section 1(3) of the Constitution.”
