Nnamdi Kanu Moves to Dismiss All Charges Through New Court Motion

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the troubled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed a new motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, requesting his immediate release and the dismissal of all charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

Kanu contended that there is no legitimate or current legal foundation for his continued prosecution in the October 30, 2025, “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support.”

He argued that the counts violate procedural and constitutional law, calling the case “a nullity ab initio” (invalid from the start) and urging the court to dismiss them all.

Kanu, who represented himself in the new petition, reportedly claimed that his trial violates pertinent provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, as well as Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He argued that the prosecution’s use of laws that have been repealed, such as the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which has been repealed by the TPPA 2022, and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which has been replaced by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, makes the entire procedure unlawful.

Kanu contended, “There is no legitimate accusation against me under any current Nigerian law.” “The prosecution is using statutes that have been repealed or are nonexistent. Due to the lack of a current legal basis, the accusations are void from the outset.

The IPOB leader argued that lower courts must take judicial notice of repealed acts under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022).

Any refusal to do so, he contended, would render all further proceedings null and unlawful.

No court of law may continue to rely on a statute that has been repealed. Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which prohibits the trial of a citizen for an offense not defined by an existing statute, is violated by such processes, according to Kanu.

Kanu further argued that the alleged crimes were believed to have taken place outside of Nigeria’s borders in Kenya.

He said that such activities must be validated by a Kenyan court before a Nigerian court can take jurisdiction, citing Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

He claims that the omission nullifies the court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction in his case and breaches Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

According to Kanu, Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution render any judicial act or legislation that violates the Constitution null and void.

He noted important rulings in which convictions were overturned because they were based on nonexistent legislation, such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113.

“The Constitution continues to be the ultimate law of the land,” Kanu declared. “Any action or choice made in defiance of its provisions is void.”

Kanu requested in his application that the presiding judge render a decision by November 4, 2025, at the latest, and that the prosecution be required to react purely on legal issues within three days.

He emphasized that no supporting affidavit was necessary because his application posed only legal and constitutional interpretation issues.

“My application is completely constitutional and lawful. He said in the motion, “There is no factual dispute that would necessitate an affidavit.

Since his re-arrest in 2021 following his escape from the country, Kanu has been under the Department of State Services’ (DSS) custody.

He is charged with several offenses that are on the verge of treason, terrorism, and incitement; he has repeatedly rejected these accusations as politically driven and legally flawed.

The court is anticipated to set a date for the hearing of the latest motion, which could decide whether the protracted trial proceeds or ends due to the IPOB leader’s fresh constitutional issues.