Nnamdi Kanu Files Fresh Motion to Dismiss Charges, Cites Repealed Laws and Lack of Jurisdiction
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, urging the court to dismiss all pending charges against him and order his immediate release.
According to court filings obtained by PulseNets, the motion, dated October 30, 2025, is titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support.” In it, Kanu contends that no valid charge exists against him under any current Nigerian law, describing the allegations as “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
The IPOB leader, who is reportedly representing himself, filed the motion pursuant to Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as the Evidence Act 2011 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA).
Kanu maintained that the Federal Government’s prosecution relied on repealed and obsolete laws, including the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which was replaced by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which has since been repealed by the TPPA 2022.
In his written submission, Kanu stressed that reliance on repealed laws violates Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which forbids prosecution for any act not defined under an existing law. He therefore prayed the court to strike out all the charges, describing them as “legally baseless and constitutionally void.”
Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), Kanu noted that lower courts are bound to take judicial notice of repealed laws under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. He argued that failure to comply with this requirement automatically renders all proceedings null and void.
A source close to the legal team told PulseNets that Kanu also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court, asserting that the alleged offences were committed in Kenya, contrary to Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which mandates prior validation by a Kenyan court before such acts can be prosecuted in Nigeria. Kanu insisted that the lack of jurisdiction violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
He further argued that, under Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution, any judicial act or legislation inconsistent with constitutional provisions is void, citing previous judgments such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, both of which nullified convictions based on non-existent laws.
Also Read: Tompolo Denies Issuing 21-Day Ultimatum Over Nnamdi Kanu’s Detention
Kanu, in his motion, urged the Federal High Court to compel the prosecution to respond strictly on points of law within three days and to deliver its ruling on or before November 4, 2025.
In his concluding statement, Kanu emphasized that his application raises purely constitutional and legal issues derived from existing statutes, hence, “does not require any affidavit for determination.”
