Kanu files fresh motion seeking dismissal of his trial for lack of legality

Steve Oko

The on-going trial of the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Thursday, took a sudden twist as he filed a fresh motion seeking outright dismissal of his trial for lack of legality and evidence.

The motion with charge number: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, was filed before the Federal High Court Abuja on October 30.

According to a copy of the motion sighted by Wawa News Global, Kanu urged the court to stop and throw away his trial by Justice James Omotosho as the Court of Appeal had earlier in a judgement, acquitted him of all counts of charge preferred against him by the federal government.

The motion was brought “pursuant to Sections 1(3), 6(6(b), 36(6(c), and 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (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 urged the Court to grant :”An Order declaring that there exists no charge or counts cognisable within the corpus juris of the Federal Republic of Nigcria 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a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation, all purported statutes underpinning the charge having been repealed or missapplied”

He also sought “an Order striking out in its entirety, the purported charge as it fails to constitute any offence known to law, the Criminal Code Act, Cap C45, LFN 2004, the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013 being either non-existence or repealed, leaving no viable Statutory basis for prosecution.”

The IPoB leader further sought “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.

“An Order declaring the issues raised in the Defendant/Applicant’s Comprehensive Written Address on the Non Existence of Any Cognisable Charge and the Unconstitutionality of Continuation of Trial, filed in strict obedience to this Honourable Court’s directive of 27 October 2025, are pure questions of fact within the purview of Sections 1(3) and 36(12) CFRN and Section 76(1)(d}(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, requiring no supporting affidavit as they are grounded in judicially noticeable statutes and the record of this Honourable Court”, the motion read.

The motion recalled that “The Defendant/Applicant, in faithful compliance with This Honourable Court’s directive of 27 October 2025, has filed a Comprehensive Written Address asserting that no valid or cognizable charge subsists against him, either under extant Nigerian statutes or under any law recognized in Kenya, where the alleged acts in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were purportedly committed.

It read:”The application hinges on pure questions of law, derivable from the Constitution, the TPPA 2022, the Evidence Act 2011, and the court record, rendering a supporting affidavit unnecessary under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, which obligates the Court to take judicial notice of all extant laws, repeals, and statutory revocations,

“The prosecution’s reliance on repealed and non-existent laws—namely the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97”.

Another prayer of Kanu was an Order directing the Prosecution/Respondent to file and serve its response, strictly confined to Points of law, within three (3) days of service of this notice”.

It further read:”Take notice that on Tuesday, the 4th day of November 2025, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. or so soon thereafter, the Defendant/Applicant may be heard”.

The motion argued that:”The Supreme Court, FRN v Kanu (SC/CR /361/2022), pages 3)33, directed trial courts to take judicial notice under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 201) of non-existence statutes, a directive binding under Section 287(1) CFRN.

According to the motion, “This Honourable Court’s failure to comply renders all proceedings void ab initio, as non-compliance with a superior court’s pronouncement is a constitutional violation (see NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 598 at 624-625).”

“Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, allegedly committed in Kenya, contravene Section 76(1) TPPA 2022, which mandates violators by a Kenyan court confirming the acts’ committed in Kenya – , a condition precedent unfulfilled pre-plea, thereby, nullifying extraordinary jurisdiction and offending Article “(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap AD LFN 2004) (see Ogugu v State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt 366)”, it read.

It further argued that”Under Sections 1(3) and 36(12) CFRN, any law or judicial pronouncement inconsistent with the Constitution is void abinitio, prohibiting trial on a charge not defined an extant written law This constitutional command is reinforced in Aoko v Fagbemi (1961) I AH NLR 400 and FRN v Ufegwe (2003) 15 NWLR (Pr 842) 113 at 175, where the courts nullified convictions resting on non-existent offences.”

Kanu also sought “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)”.