By Ogungbayi Beedee Adeyemi
adeyemi@ddnewsonline.com
In a courtroom drama that could unravel Nigeria’s most explosive terrorism prosecution, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), defiantly refused to open his defense on Friday, declaring to Justice James Omotosho: “You cannot try me under a law that no longer exists!” The IPOB supremo’s audacious constitutional salvo rooted in claims that the charges rely on repealed statutes has thrust his trial into uncharted legal waters, potentially nullifying counts and forcing a federal rethink on high-stakes cases.
Subscribe To The Best Team In Conservative, Business, Technology, Lifestyle And Digital News Realtime! support@ddnewsonline.com
The Federal High Court session, adjourned from October 24 after Kanu’s self-representation bombshell, turned tense as the 58-year-old, standing unbowed in the dock, challenged the very foundation of his seven-count indictment. Representing himself since firing his legal team, Kanu argued that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2013 underpinning key charges was superseded by the 2022 Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, rendering the prosecution “legally dead.”
He also flagged “non-existent sections” in the Criminal Code (Cap C45 LFN 2004) and outdated Customs and Excise Management Act provisions.
“A repealed law is a dead law. Trying someone under a dead law breaks the Constitution.” — Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, November 7, 2025
Kanu invoked Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which bars conviction for acts not criminalized under a written law at the time:
“A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law; and in the case of an offence under the law of a State, the written law shall have been in force when the act constituting the offence was done.”
His stance: No valid offense exists, stripping the court of jurisdiction. “This is not defiance, it’s constitutional fidelity,” Kanu thundered, echoing filings that demand quashing the charges.
In September 2025, Justice Omotosho rejected a no-case submission, ruling prima facie evidence suffices. But Kanu’s fresh jurisdictional strike filed October 21 escalates it to the Supreme Court level, potentially halting proceedings.
Federal prosecutors, led by Mohammed Abubakar, dismissed the ploy as “dilatory tactics.” “The charges align with extant laws; amendments don’t retroactively void them,” Abubakar argued. The state insists on re-pleading if needed, citing the 2022 Act’s continuity for ongoing offenses. “Kanu must defend or face judgment,” the AGF’s office stated post-hearing.
Omotosho overruled the objection, ordering judgment delivery on November 20, 2025, and remanding Kanu in DSS custody his 1,600th day in detention since 2021’s Kenyan rendition.
Kanu’s gambit spotlights prosecutorial sloppiness in Nigeria’s security trials from Dasuki to Sowore. Success could quash counts, mandate re-filing, or free him on technicals. Failure? Life in the dock, with appeals to ECOWAS or UN.
Subscribe To The Best Team In Conservative, Business, Technology, Lifestyle And Digital News Realtime! support@ddnewsonline.com
IPOB’s Emma Powerful hailed it: “Onyendu exposes the sham.” But DSS sources warn of “contempt risks.”
As judgment looms, Kanu’s cry echoes In a democracy, prosecution must breathe life from living laws. For Biafra’s voice silenced or not the gavel falls November 20.
DDNewsOnline