Stephen Ukandu, Umuahia
Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPoB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking the outright dismissal of his ongoing trial for what he described as lack of legality and merit.
The motion, with charge number FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, was filed on Thursday, October 30, 2025, and premised on multiple constitutional and statutory provisions, including Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), 36(6)(c), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011; Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022; and Order 48 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
Kanu is asking the court for: “An order declaring that there exists no charge or counts cognisable within the corpus juris of the Federal Republic of Nigeria against the Defendant/Applicant, the same being a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation, all purported statutes underpinning the charge having been repealed or misapplied.”
He is also seeking: “An order striking out in its entirety the purported charge as it fails to constitute any offence known to law, the Criminal Code Act, Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 being either non-existent or repealed, leaving no viable statutory basis for prosecution.”
Additionally, Kanu asked for: “An order for the immediate and unconditional discharge of the Defendant/Applicant, there being no lawful or constitutional basis for his continued trial or detention in the absence of a cognisable charge under any extant law of Nigeria.”
The motion argued that the issues raised in his Comprehensive Written Address, filed in obedience to the court’s directive of October 27, 2025, are “pure questions of law and fact requiring no supporting affidavit,” as they are based on judicially noticeable statutes and court records.
According to the filing, Kanu’s application maintains that no valid or cognisable charge exists against him, either under Nigerian law or under the laws of Kenya—where the alleged offences in counts 1 to 6 were purportedly committed.
He contends that the prosecution’s reliance on repealed and non-existent laws—including CEMA, repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97—renders the entire trial illegal.
The motion further referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/361/2022), which, according to him, directed trial courts to take judicial notice under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 of repealed or non-existent statutes. Kanu argued that failure by the trial court to comply with that directive would render all proceedings void ab initio, citing NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 598.
The IPoB leader also argued that the alleged offences said to have been committed in Kenya contravene Section 76(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which requires prior confirmation by a Kenyan court—a step he said was never fulfilled.
He maintained that any trial based on laws not defined by extant written legislation is unconstitutional, relying on Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution, and judicial authorities including Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ufegwe (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113 at 175.
Finally, Kanu prayed for: “Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit, expedient, and consonant with the dictates of justice, legality, and constitutional supremacy under Section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”
The motion is expected to be heard on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
