The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a preliminary objection contesting the legality of his continued prosecution under a repealed terrorism law.
Gatekeepers News reports that Kanu, through his legal team, argued that his trial under the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act of 2013 violates the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The defendant maintained that the charges contravene Sections 1(3), 36(1)–(12), and 42 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter.
The objection, filed before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, seeks to halt the proceedings until the motion is determined. Kanu insists that the court must first rule on the legality of the charges before he can proceed with his defence.
In his motion, Kanu asked the court to declare that his continued trial under the repealed law, and based on an ex parte proscription order obtained without a fair hearing, is unconstitutional and void.
He further contended that the Federal High Court’s earlier ex parte order banning IPOB was unlawful, noting that the ruling contradicted Justice Binta Nyako’s previous decision which stated that “IPOB is not an unlawful society.”
The IPOB leader also urged the court to strike out or permanently stay Counts 1–8 (excluding Count 1q5) of the amended charge filed on January 14, 2022. He argued that those counts amount to double jeopardy since they mirror charges previously dismissed by the court on April 8, 2022.
Additionally, Kanu’s motion called for a declaration that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya, without formal extradition proceedings, violated both the Nigerian Constitution and international law. He claimed the act stripped the court of jurisdiction to try him, citing Section 36 of the Constitution, the Extradition Act, and Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter.
He also sought an order nullifying all proceedings allegedly conducted in violation of his rights, including the seizure of legal materials, the denial of private communication with his counsel, and eavesdropping during defence preparation.
The motion concluded by requesting any other orders the court may deem appropriate in the circumstances.
