ABUJA: 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, asking the court to strike out all terrorism related charges against him and order his immediate release.
In the new court filing dated October 30, 2025, and titled Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support, Kanu, who is representing himself, argued that there is no valid or cognisable charge against him under Nigerian law.
He maintained that the existing counts are a nullity ab initio since they have no basis in any extant law within the country’s legal framework.
According to court documents obtained by reporter, Kanu’s motion was brought pursuant to various constitutional and statutory provisions, including 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.
Kanu asked the court to strike out the charges in their entirety, insisting that the prosecution relied on repealed and non-existent laws, specifically the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, which was repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022.
He argued that these repealed statutes vitiate the charge’s legal foundation” and violate the principle of legality under Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
Kanu further urged the court to declare that there is no lawful or constitutional basis for his continued trial or detention in the absence of any valid charge under Nigerian law.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), the IPOB leader reminded the trial court that the apex court had directed all lower courts to take judicial notice under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 of non-extant statutes.
He stressed that any failure to comply with this directive would render all proceedings void from the outset, as it would amount to a constitutional violation.
Kanu also challenged the court’s jurisdiction over some of the charges, claiming that counts one to six were allegedly committed in Kenya.
He said this contravenes Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which requires validation by a Kenyan court confirming the criminality of the acts in question before trial can proceed in Nigeria.
According to him, this omission violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004), thereby nullifying any extraterritorial jurisdiction by the Nigerian court.
Relying on Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Kanu submitted that any law or judicial decision inconsistent with the Constitution is void ab initio, adding that the Nigerian Constitution prohibits trial on a charge not defined by an existing written law.
He cited previous judicial authorities such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, in which courts nullified convictions based on non-existent offences.
Kanu’s motion also requested that the prosecution’s response be confined strictly to points of law and filed within three days of service of the motion, after which the court should deliver its ruling on or before November 4, 2025.
He stated that his application is founded solely on “pure questions of law” drawn from the Constitution, the TPPA 2022, the Evidence Act 2011, and the court record, making a supporting affidavit unnecessary.
In conclusion, Kanu urged the court to make such further or other orders as may be deemed fit, expedient, and consistent with justice, legality, and constitutional supremacy as guaranteed under Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
