Legal pressure is mounting over the conviction of IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as lawyers and rights advocates across different jurisdictions compile what they describe as extensive legal errors and jurisdictional breaches allegedly committed by Justice Binta Nyako Omotosho during Kanu’s terrorism trial.
In a detailed legal brief circulating among senior advocates, the conviction is being challenged on multiple fronts, including claims that Kanu was convicted under a repealed law, tried without jurisdiction, and prosecuted through what critics describe as a mix of obsolete and inapplicable statutes. The document argues that at the time judgment was delivered, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had already been repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, rendering any conviction under the former unconstitutional under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.
According to the legal arguments, the trial court was repeatedly alerted to the repeal but deferred ruling on jurisdiction until judgment, a move critics say contradicts settled authorities such as Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and NNPC v. Fawehinmi, which require courts to first establish jurisdiction before taking any further steps. The brief maintains that this alleged failure stripped the court of authority, making the entire proceedings a nullity.
Further allegations include claims that the court relied on a “savings clause” to sustain a repealed statute, applied a blend of old and new terrorism laws not recognised under Nigerian jurisprudence, and compelled Kanu to continue his defence despite acknowledging that a lawful conviction could not arise from a dead law.
Beyond domestic law, the challenge also raises serious international dimensions. Lawyers argue that Nigeria lacked jurisdiction to try Kanu for broadcasts allegedly made from the United Kingdom, insisting that the prosecution failed to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction, double criminality, or any evidence that the alleged broadcasts were received or acted upon within Nigeria.
The brief also revisits Kanu’s arrest, describing it as an unlawful abduction from Kenya rather than a lawful extradition. It cites Kenyan court rulings condemning the rendition, provisions of Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arguing that Nigerian courts cannot benefit from an illegal transfer to secure a conviction.
According to the lawyers, these alleged errors—described as the first 17 out of over 1,500 claimed infractions—collectively render the conviction void from inception and bar any retrial, leaving discharge and acquittal as the only lawful outcome.
Neither the Federal Government nor the trial court has officially responded to the latest compilation of allegations as of the time of filing this report.