Nnamdi Kanu Files Fresh Motion, Seeks Dismissal of Charges and Immediate Release
Share with friends:
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 for all charges against him to be dismissed and for his immediate release.
In the motion dated October 30, 2025, and titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support,” Kanu argued that the charges currently before the court have no basis in existing Nigerian law and are therefore “a nullity ab initio.”
Representing himself, Kanu filed the motion under Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, alongside provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He contended that the Federal Government relied on repealed and non-existent laws, such as the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA)—repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023—and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, replaced by the TPPA 2022.
Kanu maintained that prosecuting him under repealed laws violates Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which forbids trial for offences not defined under existing legislation. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), he argued that lower courts are bound to take judicial notice of repealed laws under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011.
The IPOB leader further argued that the alleged offences were said to have occurred in Kenya, thereby invalidating Nigeria’s jurisdiction under Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which requires Kenyan judicial validation before such charges can be tried domestically.
Kanu asserted that any legal process inconsistent with the Constitution is void, referencing landmark cases such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003), where convictions based on repealed laws were overturned.
He urged the court to compel the prosecution to respond strictly on points of law within three days and to deliver a ruling by November 4, 2025, arguing that his motion raises purely constitutional and legal questions that require no affidavit.
