The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has submitted a new motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, requesting that all charges against him be dismissed and that he be released immediately.
In the motion dated October 30, 2025, and titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support,” Kanu argued that no valid charges currently exist against him under any law in Nigeria. He stated that the charges presently before the court are “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
Kanu, who is representing himself, filed the motion pursuant to Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, the Evidence Act 2011, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He asserted that the prosecution based its case on repealed and invalid laws, including the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which was replaced by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which was repealed by the TPPA 2022.
According to Kanu, relying on such repealed laws breaches Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which forbids prosecution for offences not recognised by an existing law. He therefore urged the court to strike out the charges completely, maintaining that they do not represent any offence known under Nigerian law.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), he stated that lower courts are required to take judicial notice of repealed laws in accordance with Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. He argued that ignoring this requirement makes all legal proceedings null and void.
Kanu further contended that the alleged offences took place in Kenya, contrary to Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which mandates that such acts must first be validated by a Kenyan court before being tried in Nigeria. He said this failure invalidates the court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
He also reiterated that, in line with Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution, any law or judicial act inconsistent with the Constitution is automatically void. He cited earlier rulings, including Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where convictions based on non-existent laws were set aside.
Kanu requested that the court order the prosecution to reply to his motion solely on points of law within three days and to issue a ruling no later than November 4, 2025.
He added that his application raises only constitutional and legal issues derived from existing laws, and therefore does not require an affidavit.
