Nnamdi Kanu Files Fresh Motion to Strike Out All Charges, Cites Repealed Laws and Constitutional Violations

Abuja, Nigeria – November 1, 2025

The illegally detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking an order to strike out all criminal charges against him because no valid or cognisable offence exists under Nigerian law.

In response, the presiding judge directed that Kanu personally file a written motion of notice clearly outlining the grounds of illegality surrounding his continued detention and prosecution.

The new court document, obtained by Peoples Chronicles, titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support”, dated October 30, 2025, and filed in person, Kanu is invoking multiple constitutional and statutory provisions to challenge the competence, legality, and continued validity of the charges brought by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The motion, filed pursuant to Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), 36(6)(c), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, and Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, seeks several consequential orders from the court.

Among these are a declaration that the charges currently pending before the Federal High Court are a nullity, having been predicated on repealed and non-existent laws, and an order for his immediate and unconditional discharge.

In his application, Kanu contends that all the purported statutes forming the basis of his trial, specifically, the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) Cap C45 LFN 2004, the Criminal Code Act, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 have either been repealed or replaced, thereby rendering the prosecution’s case devoid of legal foundation. He argues that these repealed laws cannot sustain any valid charge under the 1999 Constitution or the prevailing statutes of Nigeria.

The defendant’s motion further prays the court to recognize that the issues raised in his comprehensive written address, filed in obedience to the court’s directive of October 27, 2025, are pure questions of law which require no supporting affidavit. According to him, the motion is grounded in judicially noticeable facts, including statutory repeals and court records, as provided under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

Kanu also urges the court to compel the prosecution to file its response strictly on points of law within three days of service of his motion and to deliver a ruling on or before November 4, 2025, regarding the competence and constitutional validity of the charges.

NNAMDI KANU, MOTION ON NOTICE AND WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT PDF.

In his detailed written address, Kanu states that the charges offend the supremacy of the Constitution and violate his fundamental rights under Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution, which expressly forbid trial or conviction for acts not defined as offences under extant law. He maintains that his continued detention and trial constitute a grave breach of constitutional order and the principle of legality.

The motion draws heavily on judicial precedents, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), where the apex court directed trial courts to take judicial notice of repealed statutes under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.

Kanu asserts that the Federal High Court’s failure to comply with this binding directive violates Section 287(1) of the Constitution and “renders all proceedings against him void ab initio.” The motion also references NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 598 to reinforce the binding nature of superior court pronouncements.

Kanu further argues that counts 1 to 6 of the charge, which allege acts committed in Kenya, contravene Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. He points out that the law requires prior validation by a Kenyan court confirming that the alleged acts constitute offences under Kenyan law, a procedural condition the prosecution failed to fulfill. This omission, he contends, nullifies any claim to extraterritorial jurisdiction and violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004), as affirmed in Ogugu v. State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt 366) 1.

The motion insists that under Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence, any statute or judicial act inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency. It cites Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (15 NWLR Pt 8442) 113 as authorities establishing that no person may be tried or convicted for an offence not defined by written law in force at the time of the alleged act.

Kanu submits that his motion raises a fundamental constitutional issue that transcends technical or procedural objections. He maintains that the charges against him have ceased to exist under Nigerian law, rendering his continued trial and detention unconstitutional, unlawful, and void from inception.

The defendant, therefore, prays the court to strike out the charges in their entirety and order his immediate and unconditional release, in compliance with the dictates of justice, legality, and constitutional supremacy.