“This Conviction Is Built on a Dead Law” — Global Lawyers Unleash Explosive Legal Offensive Against Kanu Judgment

A growing coalition of lawyers, legal scholars, and human-rights advocates across multiple jurisdictions has launched what they describe as a coordinated legal offensive against the conviction of IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, warning that the judgment is riddled with fatal legal errors that render it void from inception.

At the centre of the challenge is the claim that Kanu was convicted under a law that had already been repealed at the time judgment was delivered. According to the legal brief, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 — under which the conviction was entered — had ceased to exist, having been replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. Lawyers argue that Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution expressly forbids the conviction of any person for an offence not defined by a law in force at the time of trial and conviction.

The document alleges that Justice Omotosho was repeatedly alerted to the repeal during proceedings, including direct challenges from Kanu himself demanding the applicable law. Instead of resolving the jurisdictional issue immediately, the court deferred the matter to judgment — a move critics say contradicts settled authorities such as Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and NNPC v. Fawehinmi, which mandate courts to establish jurisdiction as a threshold issue.

Legal analysts argue that once a court proceeds without jurisdiction, every step taken thereafter is a nullity. They insist that a conviction entered without jurisdiction is void ab initio and cannot be cured by retrial, particularly where the prosecution had the opportunity to proceed under a valid law but failed to do so.

The challenge further accuses the court of engaging in what lawyers describe as judicial self-contradiction. According to the brief, the trial judge allegedly acknowledged during proceedings that conviction under a repealed law would be illegal, only to later reverse that position silently in the final judgment. Lawyers argue that this conduct violates the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a court from adopting inconsistent legal positions that prejudice a defendant.

Beyond domestic law, the case has taken on significant international dimensions. The legal offensive questions Nigeria’s jurisdiction to try Kanu for broadcasts allegedly made from the United Kingdom, noting that criminal jurisdiction is territorial unless expressly expanded by statute. It argues that the prosecution failed to establish mandatory extraterritorial requirements, including proof of double criminality or evidence that the alleged broadcasts were received or acted upon within Nigeria.

Another major pillar of the challenge concerns Kanu’s arrest and transfer to Nigeria. Lawyers maintain that he was abducted from Kenya rather than lawfully extradited, stressing that no extradition request was made, no Kenyan court authorised his transfer, and Kenyan courts have since declared the rendition illegal. Citing the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, they argue that Nigerian courts cannot benefit from an unlawful abduction to secure a conviction.

The brief also alleges prosecutorial misconduct, claiming that references to “London, United Kingdom” were quietly removed from the charge sheet after Kanu raised jurisdictional objections during a monitored legal consultation. Lawyers describe this as a deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny over territorial jurisdiction, further poisoning the proceedings.

According to the legal team, these issues represent only the first 17 in a catalogue of over 1,500 alleged reversible errors and constitutional violations arising from the trial. They insist that the cumulative effect leaves no lawful option other than Kanu’s discharge and acquittal, arguing that retrial would amount to rewarding both prosecutorial and judicial illegality.

As public debate intensifies, pressure continues to mount on appellate courts to scrutinise the judgment. Neither the Federal Government nor the trial court has issued an official response to the latest wave of allegations, but legal observers say the growing international attention could turn the Kanu case into one of the most consequential judicial reviews in Nigeria’s recent history.