Embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, asking the court to dismiss all charges against him and grant him an immediate release.
In the motion dated October 30, 2025, and titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support,” Kanu argued that there is no valid charge against him under any existing law in Nigeria.
He said the charges currently before the court are “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
The IPOB leader, who is representing himself after sacking his entire defence team, filed the motion under 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.
He maintained that the prosecution relied on repealed and non-existent laws, including the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which was repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by the TPPA 2022.
Kanu said the reliance on such repealed laws violates Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which prohibits trial for an offence not defined under an existing law. He therefore urged the court to strike out the charges in their entirety, insisting they do not constitute any offence known to law.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), he argued that lower courts are bound to take judicial notice of repealed laws under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, adding that failure to do so renders all proceedings void.
Kanu also contended that the counts against him were allegedly committed in Kenya, in violation of Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which requires validation by a Kenyan court before such acts can be tried in Nigeria. He said this omission nullifies the court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and breaches Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
He further maintained that under Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution, any law or judicial act inconsistent with the Constitution is void. He cited previous court decisions such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where convictions based on non-existent laws were nullified.
