The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a new motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking the court to strike out all charges against him and order his immediate release.
The motion, dated October 30, 2025, is titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support.” Kanu, who is representing himself in court, argues that none of the charges against him are valid under any existing Nigerian law.
According to him, the charges are “null and void” because the prosecution is relying on repealed and outdated laws, including:
The Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which has been replaced by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and
The Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which was repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.
Kanu said this violates Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which clearly states that no one can be tried for an offence not defined under an existing law.
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), stressing that lower courts must take judicial notice of repealed laws under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. Failing to do so, he said, makes the trial legally invalid.
Kanu further argued that the alleged offences took place in Kenya, not Nigeria. He said this violates Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which requires approval from a Kenyan court before such cases can be tried in Nigeria. This, according to him, also breaches Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees fair trial and jurisdictional fairness.
He insisted that any law or judicial act inconsistent with the Constitution is void, citing past court cases like Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003), where convictions based on repealed laws were overturned.
Kanu asked the court to order the prosecution to respond within three days, and for the court to deliver a ruling by November 4, 2025.
He added that his motion is based purely on legal and constitutional issues, so no supporting affidavit is required.
