Omotosho’s Jurisdictional Error May Have Collapsed Case Against Nnamdi Kanu, Legal Expert Argues

Also Read

 

A new legal analysis has raised serious questions about the ongoing trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), following Justice James Omotosho’s recent ruling at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

According to the brief prepared by legal consultant Njoku Jude Njoku, Justice Omotosho’s decision to reject Kanu’s no-case submission has been fatally undermined by what is described as a “jurisdictional error” — prosecuting under a repealed law.

The Alleged Fatal Error

The Federal Government’s charges against Kanu were filed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013). However, the law was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA 2022), which came into effect on May 12, 2022.

Njoku argues that Justice Omotosho’s failure to take judicial notice of this repeal violates Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 and a binding Supreme Court precedent in NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998). In that case, the apex court held that ignoring the repeal of a law renders subsequent proceedings void.

“This omission vitiates the proceedings, stripping the court of jurisdiction and rendering all rulings null and void,” Njoku stated, insisting that “a court lacking jurisdiction cannot lawfully try anyone, regardless of the allegations.”

The Savings Clause Argument

The government may rely on Section 97 of the TPPA 2022, which contains a savings clause preserving “ongoing cases” at the time of its enactment.

But Njoku maintains that this safeguard cannot apply to Kanu’s trial. He pointed out that the Court of Appeal’s ruling on October 13, 2022 discharged Kanu, effectively halting proceedings for 14 months until the Supreme Court remitted the case on December 15, 2023.

“A discharged case ceases to be ongoing,” he explained. “The Supreme Court’s remittal restored the trial process but did not revive jurisdiction under a repealed law.”

Why the Prosecution Is at Risk

The brief further cites Okafor v. Nweke (2007) to argue that actions based on non-existent statutes remain nullities, even after reinstatement.

This, combined with concerns over extraordinary rendition and constitutional safeguards under Section 36(8) of the 1999 Constitution (which bars retroactive criminal charges), could render the prosecution unsustainable.

Njoku warned that “even if the trial proceeds, it carries the indelible stain of jurisdictional nullity” and would likely be overturned on appeal, either domestically or before international bodies such as the ECOWAS Court or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

A Call for Political Resolution

The analysis concludes that Justice Omotosho’s ruling has not strengthened the government’s case but “crippled it,” leaving only one viable option: political dialogue.

“The Nigerian government now faces a stark choice: cling to a legally untenable prosecution, risking further embarrassment, or embrace a political resolution with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” Njoku stated. “Negotiation is not just the wiser path—it is the only lawful and sustainable option remaining.”