This investigation examines the fresh legal step taken by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. He is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra. He filed a written “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support” at the Federal High Court in Abuja on 30 October 2025. He asked the court to strike out the charge sheet against him and to order his immediate release.
The motion, seen by our correspondent and published by SaharaReporters, is a frontal challenge to the legal foundation of the prosecution. It raises constitutional, statutory, and international law questions. These questions go to the heart of criminal process and the rule of law in Nigeria.
This report outlines the content of Mr Kanu’s application. It details the legal precedents he invokes. The statutory text and amendments have been used incorrectly by the prosecution, according to Mr Kanu. The report also discusses broader implications for criminal justice and human rights in Nigeria.
We have cross-checked primary legislative texts and contemporary reporting and assessed how courts have treated similar objections in the past.
The core of the motion
Mr Kanu is representing himself. He contends that the indictment before the Federal High Court is a nullity. This is because the counts do not allege offences known to the law of the Federation.
The written address argues that several statutory provisions relied upon by the prosecution are repealed. Some provisions are non-existent. Thus, the purported charges lack any extant legal foundation.
The statutes contested by the defendant include the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45 LFN 2004. They also include the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013. He claims these have been repealed by later enactments.
In plain terms Mr Kanu asks the court to apply three linked legal propositions.
First, any charge must be founded on an extant written law. This should be consistent with the constitutional guarantee against retroactive criminalisation. It must also align with the principle of legality.
Second, a court must take judicial notice of the statutory landscape. This includes repeals and revocations. It must not proceed on the basis of laws that no longer subsist.
Third, where counts are alleged to arise from acts said to have been committed in Kenya, the relevant criminality must be validated under the jurisdictional and extraterritorial provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. This validation must occur before Nigerian courts exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The motion demands a ruling within days.
Repealed statutes and the legislation Mr Kanu cites
Two central legislative documents undergird the motion.
1. The Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023. That Act repealed the old Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) Cap C45 LFN 2004. It replaced it with a modern statute governing customs administration. The repeal is expressly provided for in the new Act. Mr Kanu’s written address asserts the prosecution nevertheless relied on provisions of CEMA in framing counts. The text of the Nigeria Customs Service Act confirms the repeal.
2. The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. This newer Act replaced and consolidated earlier terrorism laws and amendments made in 2013. Mr Kanu challenges the prosecution’s reliance on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 where the 2022 Act has superseded earlier provisions. The 2022 Act contains a specific jurisdictional regime and other procedural rules relevant to offences with alleged extraterritorial elements. The 2022 Act is publicly available and shows the legislative architecture Mr Kanu invokes.
If a court were to accept the defendant’s submission that the charge depends on repealed provisions, the indictment could be struck out. This would be on the ground that it fails to disclose an offence known to the law.
That is a high stake objection. If sustained, it terminates the prosecution. The prosecution must amend the charge to base counts on extant provisions to continue.
Judicial notice and Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011
A central plank of the motion is that trial courts are bound to take judicial notice of the statutory map of Nigeria. The Evidence Act 2011 requires courts to take judicial notice of certain facts including extant legislation and official publications.
Mr Kanu’s submission frames the obligation as mandatory. He contends that the Supreme Court has, in earlier rulings, reinforced trial courts’ duty. The courts must recognise when a statute is no longer in force.
The text of Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 and authoritative commentary confirm that courts may take judicial notice of such matters without formal proof. Yet, the provision is not wholly unconditional. Case law shows courts sometimes require particulars to discharge the duty.
Mr Kanu further points to appellate guidance. He argues that this guidance requires trial courts to recognise repeals. They should refuse to proceed where the charge is founded on non-extant law.
The Federal High Court’s decision will be pivotal. It will decide if the written address is enough to compel immediate judicial notice. Additionally, it will show if the court accepts the defendant’s reading of higher court rulings.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction and the Kenyan connection
The motion asserts two key points. First, counts 1 to 6 were allegedly committed in Kenya. Second, the Terrorism Act 2022 contains validation requirements for alleged extraterritorial offences.
Section 76 and related provisions of the 2022 Act set out when Nigerian courts may try offences with foreign elements. In some circumstances, they require the prosecution to show that the conduct complained of is also an offence in the foreign jurisdiction. Alternatively, it must have been validated by a competent foreign court.
Mr Kanu contends the prosecution was not able to meet that threshold. The text of the 2022 Act and statutory rulemaking make clear that jurisdictional preconditions are not mere formalities.
This argument also invokes international human rights law. The motion relies on Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This article guarantees a right to a fair trial. It also guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court.
The Charter has been domesticated in Nigerian law. Article 7 is cited to underscore that accused persons must not be tried. This holds true when jurisdictional or legality defects undermine the fairness of proceedings.
The African Charter’s fair trial guarantees have been long recognised in Nigerian jurisprudence and in comparative jurisprudence across the continent.
Precedent and comparative points
Mr Kanu’s written address cites older Nigerian authorities where courts annulled convictions resting on non-existent offences. Aoko v Fagbemi (1961) and FRN v Ifegwu (2003) are examples invoked in his motion.
The proposition is well established as a matter of principle. There is no criminal liability when no law criminalises the conduct at the relevant time.
Comparative common law jurisdictions follow the same principle of nullum crimen sine lege. When new legislation repeals or replaces old provisions, the courts must find the applicable offences. These apply according to the active statute book.
The strategic invocation of these precedents serves a purpose. It is designed to remind the trial court that the rule of law forbids convictions based on legal non-existence.
The motion also relies on a Supreme Court pronouncement. It states that defence counsel and trial courts should take judicial notice of the statutory record.
Contemporary reporting and legal commentary suggest that appellate courts occasionally give guidance. They direct trial courts to be alert to statutory repeals.
The contested terrain is about how strictly Section 122 should be applied in criminal trials. Another issue is whether a written address without an affidavit suffices to trigger immediate dismissal.
Political and human rights context
This application arrives against a backdrop of years of high-profile litigation. The litigation surrounds Mr Kanu’s detention, surrender, rendition, and the charge array.
His case has been the subject of earlier appellate interventions and intense public debate. Any Federal High Court ruling that entertains striking out the indictment will be explosive politically and legally.
The government will almost certainly resist the motion. They will argue that the counts are valid. They might state that any statute relied upon remains applicable to the facts. Alternatively, they may claim that defects are curable by amendment.
From a human rights perspective, the case raises classic tensions. These include the State’s interest in prosecuting terrorism and preserving national security. This is against the imperative that prosecutions be legally grounded, procedurally fair, and respect international guarantees.
The African Charter and domestic constitutional safeguards put the fairness obligation squarely on the courts.
What the prosecution must now prove or concede
If the prosecution accepts the defendant’s position on the repealed statutes it has two immediate options. It may apply to amend the indictment to rely on extant statutes that capture the same conduct.
Or it may oppose the motion. It can ask the court to hold that the statutes cited in the charge are still properly invoked. This is because the alleged conduct falls within saving or transitional provisions. Alternatively, it can be because alternate counts properly reflect extant offences.
The Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023 and the TPPA 2022 have fine print. It includes transitional clauses and saving mechanisms. Prosecutors may rely upon these. The precise drafting of the indictment and the record will thus be decisive.
If the court strikes the charge solely on the ground of reliance on repealed law, the decision will likely be appealed. The appeal will focus on statutory interpretation. It will consider whether the repeal was absolute. It will also address the constitutional principle. No one should be tried for conduct that is not an offence under the law in force at the relevant time.
Likely timetable and immediate consequences
Mr Kanu’s written address asked the court to require the prosecution to respond within three days. It also requested the court to deliver a ruling by 4 November 2025. Whether the court will accept that accelerated timetable depends on judicial discretion and the court’s calendar.
The record shows the motion raises pure legal questions. These questions are susceptible to speedy resolution. This is possible if the trial judge agrees they are limited to matters of law. Contemporary reporting indicates the motion was filed on 30 October 2025 and published the same day.
Our reading
Three provisional observations have been made.
First, Mr Kanu’s written address is legally coherent and anchored to plainly available legislative texts and constitutional principles. The CEMA was repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023. The consolidation of terrorism offences in the TPPA 2022 is also a demonstrable statutory fact. The obligation on courts to recognise extant law is real and recognised in Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011.
Second, securing the relief Mr Kanu seeks is difficult but not impossible. Courts will be cautious before ordering discharge and release in a terrorism prosecution. They will expect the prosecution to explain statutory bases. The prosecution should correct the indictment where appropriate. They also need to show that saving or transitional provisions preserve the viability of particular counts. The strategic advantage of striking out charges on legality grounds is obvious for any defendant. Yet, courts will balance that advantage against the public interest. They make sure certain charges are heard on the merits where they can lawfully be maintained.
Third, the invocation of extraterritorial validation requirements has real teeth. If the prosecution cannot show compliance with Section 76 of the TPPA 2022, the court may find that part of the indictment defective. The same applies if the prosecution does not meet applicable requisites for trying acts said to have occurred in Kenya. That would substantially narrow the case and could force the State to reframe its theory of the case.
What to watch next
- The Federal High Court’s scheduling order on the motion must be addressed. The court will decide if the prosecution is directed to file a response within the short window sought by the defendant.
- Any detailed prosecutorial affidavit or statutory material the State files to justify the counts as grounded in extant law.
- The court may take judicial notice sua sponte of the statutory repeals relied upon by the defence. Alternatively, it may require formal proof. Evidence Act jurisprudence is mixed on when judicial notice will discharge formal proof requirements.
- Appellate outcomes if the trial judge accepts the defence argument or choses an intermediate position.
Conclusion
Nnamdi Kanu’s written motion is a crafted legal challenge that insists on a non-negotiable rule of criminal law: prosecutions must be founded on law that exists.
The motion draws strength from recent legislative reform and from entrenched constitutional principles. The Federal High Court will now be asked to choose between two outcomes.
It may insist on strict legality and either discharge the indictment or require the prosecution to reframe it. Or it may allow the prosecution time to cure any defects and press ahead to trial.
Either result will be important for jurisprudence. This involves the interplay between repeal, judicial notice, and prosecutorial practice in high-profile national security cases.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
