BREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu Recordsdata New Movement to Dismiss All Expenses, Claims None Are Legitimate Beneath Nigerian Regulation
Nnamdi Kanu Recordsdata Recent Movement In search of Dismissal of All Expenses, Cites Repealed Legal guidelines and Lack of Authorized Foundation
The detained chief of the Indigenous Folks of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a brand new movement earlier than the Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja, urging the court docket to strike out all expenses in opposition to him and order his rapid launch.
In accordance with court docket paperwork obtained by SaharaReporters on Friday, the movement, titled “Movement on Discover and Written Deal with in Help,” was dated October 30, 2025.
Kanu, who’s representing himself, argued that there’s “no cost or rely cognisable throughout the legal guidelines of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” in opposition to him, insisting that the fees are “a nullity from the beginning for lack of authorized basis.”
Difficult the Authorized Foundation
The IPOB chief maintained that the fees filed by the Federal Authorities had been based mostly on repealed and non-existent legal guidelines, together with the Customs and Excise Administration Act (CEMA)—which was repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act, 2023—and the Terrorism Prevention (Modification) Act, 2013, which was changed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
He contended that counting on such repealed legal guidelines violates Part 36(12) of the Nigerian Structure, which prohibits trial for an offence not outlined by an current written regulation.
Citing the Supreme Courtroom ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), Kanu reminded the decrease court docket that it should take judicial discover of repealed statutes beneath Part 122 of the Proof Act, 2011, warning that failure to take action would render the proceedings “void ab initio.”
Claims of Jurisdictional Flaws
Kanu additionally argued that counts one to 6 of the fees had been allegedly dedicated in Kenya, which he stated violates Part 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022. He defined that this regulation requires affirmation by a Kenyan court docket that the alleged acts are legal in Kenya earlier than Nigeria can assume jurisdiction.
In accordance with him, this omission nullifies Nigeria’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and breaches Article 7(2) of the African Constitution on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Constitutional Arguments
Kanu additional cited Part 1(3) of the Structure, stressing that any regulation or judicial act inconsistent with the Structure is void. He referenced earlier court docket selections corresponding to Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003), the place convictions based mostly on non-existent legal guidelines had been struck out.
He urged the court docket to rule on the movement promptly, directing the prosecution to reply strictly on factors of regulation inside three days of receiving the movement and to ship a ruling by November 4, 2025.
Kanu concluded that his software raises “pure questions of regulation derived from the Structure, the TPPA 2022, and the Proof Act 2011,” and due to this fact doesn’t require an affidavit.
He additionally requested that the court docket challenge “some other orders deemed match within the curiosity of justice, legality, and constitutional supremacy.”