A powerful legal storm is gathering around the conviction of IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as lawyers and human-rights advocates across several countries intensify efforts to overturn what they describe as a judgment fatally tainted by constitutional and jurisdictional defects.
At the heart of the renewed challenge is the allegation that Kanu was convicted under a law that had already been repealed. Legal documents circulating among senior advocates state that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was no longer in force at the time judgment was delivered, having been replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, lawyers argue that no Nigerian court has the power to convict a person for an offence not defined by a law in force at the time of conviction.
According to the brief, the trial court was repeatedly alerted to the repeal but declined to rule on the issue immediately, choosing instead to defer the question of jurisdiction until judgment. Legal commentators say this approach contradicts settled authorities which hold that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of any trial and must be determined before a court proceeds.
The legal challenge further accuses the court of judicial inconsistency. Lawyers claim the trial judge accepted during proceedings that conviction under a repealed law would be unlawful, only to later deliver a judgment founded on that same law. They argue that such a reversal amounts to a constitutional ambush that undermines the fairness of the trial.
Another major fault line identified is the alleged use of a hybrid of repealed and current terrorism laws to ground criminal liability. The brief insists that Nigerian criminal law does not recognise convictions based on a patchwork of statutes, stressing that Section 36(12) requires offences to be clearly defined under a single written law.
The case has also taken on international significance. Lawyers argue that Nigeria lacked jurisdiction to try Kanu for broadcasts allegedly made from the United Kingdom, noting that criminal jurisdiction is generally territorial. They say the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged broadcasts were criminal under UK law or that they were received and acted upon within Nigeria.
Kanu’s arrest and transfer to Nigeria remain a central issue. The legal team maintains that he was abducted from Kenya rather than lawfully extradited, pointing to rulings by Kenyan courts that reportedly declared the rendition illegal. They argue that Nigerian courts cannot derive jurisdiction from an unlawful abduction, citing both domestic law and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Additional allegations include claims of prosecutorial manipulation of the charge sheet, unlawful surveillance of lawyer-client communications, and the continuation of trial proceedings after they had allegedly become legally futile.
According to the lawyers, these issues represent only the first set of more than 1,500 alleged errors and constitutional violations embedded in the trial. They insist that the cumulative effect renders the conviction void from inception and forecloses any retrial, leaving discharge and acquittal as the only lawful outcomes.
As public interest grows, legal observers say the Kanu case is fast becoming a defining test of Nigeria’s commitment to constitutional supremacy, judicial consistency, and the rule of law. The Federal Government has not yet issued an official response to the latest wave of allegations.
0 Comments