Legal scrutiny is intensifying over the conviction of IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as lawyers and human rights advocates from multiple jurisdictions raise concerns about what they describe as a series of procedural and constitutional errors committed during his terrorism trial. The mounting pressure comes in the form of an extensive legal brief, which is currently circulating among senior advocates and legal experts, challenging both the legitimacy of the trial and the validity of the conviction itself.
The document, which outlines more than 1,500 alleged violations, contends that Kanu’s prosecution was marred by fundamental flaws, including being tried under a law that had already been repealed. Specifically, the brief asserts that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013—under which Kanu was convicted—was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 before the judgment was delivered. Legal experts argue that, under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, any conviction based on a repealed statute is unconstitutional.
According to the brief, the trial court repeatedly received notices of the statutory repeal but deferred ruling on jurisdiction until the final judgment. Critics argue this contravenes established Nigerian legal principles, citing landmark cases such as Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and NNPC v. Fawehinmi, which mandate that courts determine jurisdiction at the outset of proceedings. The brief suggests that by failing to address jurisdiction promptly, the trial court effectively operated without legal authority, rendering the entire trial null and void.
Other serious allegations include the court’s reliance on a so-called “savings clause” to uphold a repealed law, the application of a confusing mix of outdated and current terrorism statutes, and compelling Kanu to continue defending himself despite acknowledging that no lawful conviction could arise from a defunct statute. These claims, if upheld, could significantly undermine the legal basis of the entire trial.
The challenge also raises international legal concerns. Lawyers contend that Nigeria lacked jurisdiction over alleged broadcasts Kanu reportedly made from the United Kingdom. They argue that the prosecution failed to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction, double criminality, or proof that the broadcasts had any tangible effect in Nigeria.
The brief further scrutinizes Kanu’s arrest, describing it as an unlawful rendition from Kenya rather than a legitimate extradition. Legal experts reference Kenyan court rulings condemning the manner of his transfer, along with provisions of Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, asserting that Nigerian courts cannot derive legitimacy from an illegal apprehension.
According to the lawyers, the first 17 of the alleged 1,500 infractions alone are sufficient to render Kanu’s conviction null from the outset, with retrial barred and discharge or acquittal being the only constitutionally permissible outcome.
As of the time of this report, neither the Federal Government nor the trial court has publicly addressed the compilation of these allegations. With legal and human rights experts now closely monitoring the situation, the case appears poised to ignite further debate on the limits of judicial authority and the application of anti-terrorism laws in Nigeria.
0 Comments