Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the troubled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has submitted a new motion to the Federal High Court in Abuja, requesting his immediate release and the dismissal of all charges brought against him by the Federal Government.
Kanu contended that there is no legitimate or current legal foundation for his continued prosecution in the October 30, 2025, motion headed “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support.”
He called the case “a nullity ab initio” (invalid from the start) and asked the court to dismiss all of the counts, arguing that they were against procedural and constitutional law.
According to reports, Kanu, who represented himself in the new petition, said that his trial violates pertinent provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, as well as Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He argued that the prosecution’s use of laws that have been repealed, such as the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which has been repealed by the TPPA 2022, and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which has been replaced by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, invalidates the entire process.
Kanu contended, “There is no valid charge against me under any existing law in Nigeria.” The prosecution is using statutes that have been repealed or are nonexistent. Due to the lack of any current legal basis, the accusations are void from the outset.
The IPOB leader insisted that lower courts must take judicial notice of repealed acts under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022).
Any failure to do so, he contended, would render all ensuing actions null and unlawful.
“No court of law may continue to rely on a statute that has been abolished. According to Kanu, “such proceedings violate Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which prohibits the trial of a citizen for an offense not defined by an existing law.”
Kanu further argued that the accused offenses were allegedly committed outside of Nigeria’s territorial jurisdiction in Kenya.
He said that before a Nigerian court may take jurisdiction over such activities, a Kenyan court must validate them, citing Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He claims that the omission invalidates the court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction in his case and breaches Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
According to Kanu, Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution render any judicial act or legislation that is in conflict with the Constitution null and unconstitutional.
He noted important rulings in which convictions were overturned for being based on nonexistent legislation, such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113.
Kanu declared, “The Constitution continues to be the ultimate law of the land.” “Any action or choice made in contravention of its provisions is void.”
Kanu requested in his application that the presiding judge make a decision by November 4, 2025, at the latest, and that the prosecution be required to react purely on legal issues within three days.
He emphasized that no supporting affidavit was needed because his application highlighted only legal and constitutional interpretation issues.
“My application is entirely constitutional and lawful. He said in the motion, “There is no factual dispute that would necessitate an affidavit.”
Since his re-arrest in 2021 following his escape from the nation, Kanu has been under the Department of State Services’ (DSS) custody.
He is accused with several offenses that are on the verge of treason, terrorism, and provocation; he has repeatedly rejected these accusations as politically driven and legally flawed.
The court is anticipated to set a date for the latest motion’s hearing, which could decide whether the protracted trial proceeds or ends due to the IPOB leader’s fresh constitutional issues.
