The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who is still in custody, has submitted a new application before the Federal High Court in Abuja. In the filing, he is asking the court to throw out every charge against him and order his release.
The application, dated October 30, 2025, is titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support.” In it, Kanu insists that, under Nigerian law, there is no valid charge currently standing against him. He describes the case before the court as “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
Kanu is acting as his own lawyer. He based his motion on Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, alongside the Evidence Act 2011, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
His argument is that the government relied on outdated and repealed legislation, such as the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which was removed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which was replaced by the TPPA 2022.
He claims that prosecuting him under laws that no longer exist breaches Section 36(12) of the Constitution because no one can be tried for an offence that is not defined under a valid law. On that basis, he wants the court to remove all the counts, stressing that they do not amount to any recognised offence.
Kanu referred to the Supreme Court ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), saying that every court must take judicial notice of repealed laws by virtue of Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. He added that ignoring this requirement makes the entire trial void.
Another point he raised is that the alleged offences were said to have taken place in Kenya. According to him, Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022 demands that a Kenyan court must validate anything that happened there before Nigeria can try it. He said this condition was ignored, which removes the basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction and goes against Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
READ ALSO: IPOB to NBA: Name Law Behind Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial
Kanu further argued that Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution make it clear that any act or law that contradicts the Constitution is void. He relied on past decisions such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where convictions were cancelled because they were based on laws that did not exist.
He asked the court to compel the prosecution to respond to the motion within three days and to deliver a ruling on or before November 4, 2025.
Kanu added that his motion deals strictly with legal and constitutional issues backed by existing statutes, so there is no need for an affidavit.