The legal team of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has said lawyers in several foreign jurisdictions are preparing a coordinated legal challenge to overturn his conviction.
The defence described the judgment that handed Kanu life imprisonment as constitutionally and jurisdictionally defective.
In a detailed brief prepared by one of the defence teams, led by Njoku Jude Njoku, and shared with journalists on Wednesday, the lawyers argued that the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Omotosho, convicted Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, which they said had been repealed before judgment was delivered.
According to the defence, the repealed law had been replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022, making the conviction unlawful.
Relying on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the lawyers maintained that no person can be convicted for an offence not defined by a law in force at the time of trial and conviction.
They also cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act and the Supreme Court decision in NNPC v. Fawehinmi, arguing that courts are required to take judicial notice of repealed statutes and that failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction.
The defence further claimed that Justice Omotosho had acknowledged on record that conviction under a repealed law would be unlawful but later reversed that position in the final judgment, which they described as judicial estoppel.
They said this amounted to a constitutional ambush, particularly as Kanu was unrepresented at the time.
The lawyers faulted the court for deferring the determination of jurisdictional objections until judgment, contrary to the principle in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, which establishes that jurisdiction must exist before a court can take any step in a matter.
They argued that by proceeding with the trial without first resolving jurisdiction, all steps taken thereafter were a nullity.
On the applicable law, the defence criticised the court’s reliance on a savings clause to sustain prosecution under a repealed statute, arguing that savings clauses are meant to manage lawful transitions and not to preserve extinguished laws.
They contended that the judgment improperly blended provisions of repealed and existing terrorism statutes, creating what they described as a fictional hybrid law unknown to Nigerian criminal jurisprudence.
Addressing the substance of the charges, the defence maintained that the alleged offences were based on broadcasts made from the United Kingdom, noting that Nigerian criminal jurisdiction is territorial unless expressly expanded by statute.
They argued that the prosecution failed to establish the requirements for extraterritorial jurisdiction, including proof of double criminality under United Kingdom law, as required by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.
The lawyers also said no evidence was led to show that the alleged broadcasts were received, heard or acted upon in Nigeria.
On Kanu’s arrest, the defence insisted that he was abducted from Kenya rather than lawfully extradited, stating that no extradition request was made and no Kenyan court authorised his transfer.
They added that Kenyan courts had since declared the rendition illegal, arguing that Nigerian courts cannot derive jurisdiction from an unlawful arrest or benefit from executive illegality.
Citing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Supreme Court decision in Abacha v. Fawehinmi, the defence argued that reliance on the doctrine of male captus bene detentus could not cure what they described as fundamental constitutional and statutory violations.
According to the lawyers, legal practitioners in several countries are now reviewing the case with a view to challenging the conviction through domestic appeals, constitutional actions and international legal mechanisms.
They said the cumulative effect of the alleged errors renders the conviction unsustainable.
“The only lawful outcome, in our view, is the discharge and acquittal of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” the defence said.
