Kanu Challenges Trial Over Illegal Rendition and Repealed Terrorism Law

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a preliminary objection before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to halt his ongoing trial on terrorism-related charges.

His legal team is asking the court to either strike out or permanently suspend the proceedings, claiming that his prosecution is unconstitutional and based on repealed laws.

The objection, filed on October 16, 2025, argues that the Federal Government has no legal ground to continue prosecuting Kanu under the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act of 2013, which was replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022. His lawyers described the charges as “null and void” since they were filed under a law that no longer exists.

Kanu also challenged the 2017 proscription of IPOB, insisting that the order was unconstitutional because it was obtained without notice or a fair hearing. The motion noted that Justice Binta Nyako had previously ruled that IPOB was not an unlawful group, making the government’s proscription invalid.

In his application, Kanu requested several declarations, including the nullification of all charges framed under repealed laws and an order to permanently stop the case. He also asked the court to rule that his forced rendition from Kenya in 2021 violated Nigeria’s Constitution and the Extradition Act, thereby removing the court’s power to try him.

His legal team argued that the government’s actions—particularly his abduction from Kenya without a proper extradition process—violated international law and rendered the entire trial process unlawful. They cited previous rulings, including FRN v. Kanu (CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022), which held that illegal rendition strips a court of jurisdiction.

The motion further alleged that the Nigerian authorities violated Kanu’s right to a fair trial by eavesdropping on confidential meetings with his lawyers and seizing his legal materials. According to the defence, such actions breached his constitutional right to adequate facilities for his defence.

Kanu’s lawyers also argued that his continued detention after the Court of Appeal discharged him of all charges on October 13, 2022, amounts to contempt of court. They cited the Supreme Court case Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State (1986), which held that a government in disobedience of a court order cannot seek the court’s indulgence.

The defence maintained that Kanu’s trial cannot continue until the government complies with existing judgments and restores him to the position he held before his rendition. They urged the court to strike out all defective counts and dismiss the case entirely, arguing that “jurisdiction cannot be conferred by illegality.”