THIS DAWN — Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, former Lead Counsel to the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has released a detailed legal brief explaining why his team successfully blocked Kanu’s trial between February 2024 and February 2025.
Barrister Ejimakor also explained why he believes the Court of Appeal is now poised to overturn the conviction delivered by Justice James Omotosho in Abuja.
In a comprehensive statement, Ejimakor argued that the core legal issues that stalled Kanu’s trial remain the same defects that will likely invalidate the judgment on appeal.
Central to his argument is the claim that:
- the charges were filed under a repealed law,
- lacked essential jurisdictional elements, and,
- failed to meet the stricter requirements introduced by Nigeria’s updated terrorism legislation.
Broadcasts Made Abroad — And the Law Governing Extraterritorial Offences
Ejimakor explained that all the charges against Kanu centred on broadcasts he made between 2018 and 2021, allegedly from the United Kingdom.
These broadcasts were initially charged under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013).
The Act allowed Nigeria’s Federal High Court to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction without requiring proof that the conduct was also criminal in the foreign country where it occurred.
However, the legal landscape changed in 2022 when the National Assembly repealed the TPAA 2013 and replaced it with the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 (TPPA 2022).
This new law introduced a double criminality test, requiring prosecutors to prove that any alleged terrorist act committed abroad was also an offence under the laws of the country where it occurred.
According to Ejimakor, this single provision fundamentally altered the legal basis for Kanu’s trial.
“Under the TPPA 2022, the prosecution must show that Kanu’s broadcasts were criminal both in Nigeria and in the UK or Kenya.
“They failed to do this — and likely could not — because the broadcasts were political speech that is not classified as terrorism in those jurisdictions,” he said.
Why the Trial Should Have Been Conducted Under the 2022 Law
The former lead counsel argued that although the alleged acts occurred before the repeal, the Federal High Court was still duty-bound to apply the 2022 law.
This, according to him, is because Kanu’s case was reassigned for a trial de novo after Justice Murtala-Nyako was recused.
Citing multiple Supreme Court authorities, Ejimakor insisted that a new trial following reassignment must apply the law in force at the time of the trial, not the repealed statute.
He referenced decisions such as Adegbenro v. Akintola (1963) and DPP v. Okocha (2004) to support the position that jurisdictional tests must be assessed under current law, even where saving clauses exist.
A Defective Charge Sheet: Failure to Identify the Foreign Country
Beyond the double criminality rule, Ejimakor said the prosecution’s failure to specify the foreign country from which the broadcasts were made was a fatal jurisdictional defect. Without stating the situs of the alleged offence, the court could not determine which foreign laws to examine or whether those broadcasts were criminal there.
He cited FRN v. Usman (2019) and Yakubu v. FRN (2020) as authorities showing that failure to specify material elements of an offence robs the court of jurisdiction.
“This omission violated Kanu’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and details of the offence,” Ejimakor argued. “It misled the defence and made it impossible to raise proper legal objections under the double criminality standard.”
Why Objections Were Not Entertained — And Why Appeal Should Succeed
Ejimakor disclosed that under the new legal team, led after February 2025 by another senior lawyer, the defence strategy shifted from challenging jurisdiction to attacking the merit of the allegations. Despite this, the underlying defects persisted.
He insisted that Justice Omotosho erred by refusing to determine the jurisdictional objections before delivering judgment.
He added:
“The prosecution clung to the repealed TPAA 2013 to avoid the safeguards in the 2022 Act. This created a trial anchored on a repealed statute and an incompetent charge sheet. On that ground alone, the Court of Appeal is most likely to overturn the conviction.”
Conclusion
Ejimakor concluded that the combination of the new law, the constitutional right to fair hearing, and the prosecution’s failure to meet essential jurisdictional requirements made Kanu’s conviction legally unsustainable.
He emphasised that:
-
the 2022 terrorism law must govern any trial held after its enactment,
-
the double criminality test is a binding substantive protection,
-
and the charge sheet’s omissions render the case void.
With Kanu’s legal team preparing to file a robust appeal, Ejimakor maintains that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial in the first place.
He also insisted that the appellate court will likely set the conviction aside.
