The ongoing trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, may have suffered a fatal legal setback following what has been described as a “jurisdictional error” by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Legal analysts argue that Justice Omotosho’s recent ruling rejecting Kanu’s no-case submission was built on a repealed law, thereby rendering the entire prosecution legally void.

The controversy centres on the court’s reliance on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), despite its repeal by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA 2022), which came into force on May 12, 2022.

According to Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, courts are mandated to take judicial notice of existing laws and their repeal. Failure to do so, the Supreme Court had ruled in NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998), “vitiates the proceedings.” Analysts say this principle directly applies to Omotosho’s ruling, stripping the court of jurisdiction.

“This is not a minor oversight—it is a jurisdictional collapse,” said Njoku Jude Njoku, a consultant to the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, in a brief released Sunday. “A court without jurisdiction cannot lawfully try anyone, regardless of the allegations.”

Why the Savings Clause Does Not Apply

The Federal Government may have relied on Section 97 of the TPPA 2022, which preserves ongoing cases at the time of the law’s commencement. However, experts point out that Kanu’s case was discharged by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022, effectively halting proceedings for 14 months until the Supreme Court remitted the case in December 2023.

They argue that once discharged, the matter ceased to be “ongoing” within the meaning of the savings clause, meaning the prosecution cannot be rescued by the provision.

Prosecution ‘Legally Dead’

The brief concludes that the combination of errors—the use of a repealed statute, the failure to take judicial notice of its repeal, and the break in continuity after the Court of Appeal’s discharge—renders the prosecution legally unsustainable.

“Even if the trial proceeds, it bears the indelible stain of jurisdictional nullity,” the statement added, warning that any conviction could be overturned on appeal or by regional courts such as the ECOWAS Court of Justice or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Call for Political Resolution

The analysis urged the Federal Government to reconsider its approach to Kanu’s trial, arguing that negotiation is now the only lawful and sustainable option.

“The Nigerian government faces a stark choice: cling to a legally untenable prosecution, risking further embarrassment, or embrace a political resolution with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Negotiation is not just the wiser path—it is the only path remaining,” Njoku stated.