A fresh wave of legal pressure is building against the conviction of IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as lawyers and rights advocates across Nigeria, Europe, and Africa intensify efforts to overturn what they describe as a fundamentally flawed judgment.
According to a comprehensive legal brief now in circulation, the conviction is being attacked on the ground that it was secured under a statute that had already been repealed at the time judgment was delivered. The brief states that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was no longer in force, having been replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, making any conviction under the former unconstitutional under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.
Legal sources argue that the trial court was repeatedly put on notice of the repeal during proceedings but failed to rule on the issue when it mattered most. Instead, the court allegedly postponed the jurisdictional question until judgment, a step critics say runs contrary to long-established judicial authorities which require courts to confirm their jurisdiction before taking any further action.
The challenge also accuses the court of adopting inconsistent legal positions. Lawyers claim the judge acknowledged during trial that a conviction under a repealed law would be illegal, only to later deliver a judgment based on that same repealed statute. They argue that this reversal amounts to judicial ambush and undermines the integrity of the proceedings.
Beyond the issue of repealed legislation, the legal offensive highlights what it calls the improper application of a mixture of old and new terrorism laws. According to the brief, criminal liability must arise from a single identifiable statute, not from a blend of repealed and current provisions, which lawyers describe as unknown to Nigerian law.
International jurisdiction forms another critical battleground. The brief questions Nigeria’s authority to try Kanu for broadcasts allegedly made from the United Kingdom, noting that criminal jurisdiction is territorial unless expressly extended by law. Lawyers insist the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged broadcasts were criminal offences under UK law or that they were received or acted upon within Nigeria.
Kanu’s arrest and transfer to Nigeria have also returned to the spotlight. The brief maintains that he was forcibly abducted from Kenya rather than lawfully extradited, stressing that no extradition proceedings were initiated and that Kenyan courts have since declared the rendition illegal. Lawyers argue that such an unlawful transfer deprives Nigerian courts of jurisdiction from the outset.
Further allegations include claims of prosecutorial manipulation of the charge sheet and the monitoring of privileged lawyer-client conversations, actions critics say strike at the heart of fair trial guarantees.
According to the lawyers, these alleged violations represent only a fraction of the errors embedded in the trial, with more than 1,500 grounds said to be available on appeal. They contend that the scale and nature of the infractions foreclose the possibility of a retrial and leave discharge and acquittal as the only lawful remedies.
As reactions continue to pour in, legal analysts warn that the unfolding challenge could redefine key principles of jurisdiction, extradition, and constitutional compliance in Nigeria’s criminal justice system. For now, the Federal Government has yet to issue an official response to the latest claims, even as public and international scrutiny of the case continues to intensify.