BREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu Files Fresh Motion, Asks Court To Strike Out All Charges, Says ‘No Charge Exists Against Me Under Nigerian Law’

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a new motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking the court to strike out all charges against him and order his immediate release.

In the new court document obtained by SaharaReporters on Friday morning, the motion is titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support” and dated 30th of October, 2025. 

Kanu, who is representing himself in court, told the trial judge that there is “no charge or counts cognisable within the corpus juris of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” against him, insisting that the charges are “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”

The document, filed pursuant to several constitutional and statutory provisions, including Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, the Evidence Act 2011, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, forms part of Kanu’s continued legal challenge against his ongoing prosecution by the Nigerian government.

Kanu asked the court to make “an order striking out in its entirety the purported charge as it fails to constitute any offence known to law,” noting that the prosecution had relied on “repealed and non-existent laws—namely the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022.”

He argued that the repealed statutes “vitiate the charge’s legal foundation and offend the principle of legality enshrined in Section 36(12) of the Constitution.”

Kanu also urged the court to declare that “there exists no lawful or constitutional basis for his continued trial or detention in the absence of a cognisable charge under any extant law of Nigeria.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), the IPOB leader reminded the trial court that the apex court had directed lower courts to “take judicial notice under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 of non-extant statutes,” stressing that failure to do so “renders all proceedings void ab initio, as non-compliance with a superior court’s pronouncement is a constitutional violation.”

Kanu further claimed that the counts against him, specifically counts 1 to 6, were allegedly committed in Kenya, which according to him “contravene Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022.”

That section, he said, “mandates validation by a Kenyan court confirming the acts’ criminality in Kenya, a condition precedent unfulfilled pre-plea, thereby nullifying extraterritorial jurisdiction.”

He argued that this omission “offends Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004).”

Quoting Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Kanu maintained that “any law or judicial pronouncement inconsistent with the Constitution is void ab initio,” adding that the Nigerian Constitution “prohibits trial on a charge not defined in an extant written law.”

He cited earlier decisions such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where the courts “nullified convictions resting on non-existent offences.”

Kanu’s motion concluded by requesting the court to direct the prosecution to file its response “strictly confined to points of law within three days of service of this motion,” and to proceed “to deliver a considered ruling forthwith… on or before Tuesday, the 4th of November 2025.”

The IPOB leader emphasized that his application “hinges on pure questions of law, derivable from the Constitution, the TPPA 2022, the Evidence Act 2011, and the court record,” and therefore does not require an affidavit.

He urged the court to issue “such further or other orders as may be deemed fit, expedient, and consonant with the dictates of justice, legality, and constitutional supremacy under Section 1(3) of the Constitution.”

The court document reads in part: “The Defendant/Applicant, in faithful compliance with This Honourable Court's directive of 27 October 2025, has filed a Comprehensive Written Address asserting that no valid or cognizable charge subsists against him, either under extant Nigerian statutes or under any law recognized in Kenya, where the alleged acts in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were purportedly committed.

“b. The application hinges on pure questions of law, derivable from the Constitution, the TPPA 2022, the Evidence Act 2011, and the court record, rendering a supporting affidavit unnecessary under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, which obligates the Court to take judicial notice of all extant laws, repeals, and statutory revocations.

“c. The prosecution's reliance on repealed and non-existent laws-namely the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022-vitiates the charge's legal foundation and offends the principle of legality enshrined in Section 36(12) CFRN.

“d. The Supreme Court in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), at pages 30- 31, directed trial courts to take judicial notice under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 of non-extant statutes, a directive binding under Section 287(1) CFRN; This Honourable Court's failure to comply renders all proceedings void ab initio, as non-compliance with a superior court's pronouncement is a constitutional violation (see NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 598 at 624-625).

“e. Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, allegedly committed in Kenya, contravene Section 76(1)(d)(iii) TPPA 2022, which mandates validation by a Kenyan court confirming the acts' criminality in Kenya a condition precedent unfulfilled pre-plea, thereby nullifying extraterritorial jurisdiction and offending Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Cap A9 LFN 2004) (see Ogugu v. State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt 366) Г).

“f. Under Sections 1(3) and 36(12) CFRN, any law or judicial pronouncement inconsistent with the Constitution is void ab initio, prohibiting trial on a charge not defined in an extant written law. This constitutional command is reinforced in Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113 at 175, where the courts nullified convictions resting on non-existent offences.

“g. The Defendant/Applicant's Written Address raises the fundamental constitutional question of the charge's non-existence, transcending mere jurisdictional or procedural objections, and requiring immediate.”