The defence team of Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, leader, Nnamdi Kanu, on Tuesday disclosed that lawyers fighting for the agitator’s freedom are “secretly and quietly” assembling legal “missiles” that will overturn his conviction at the Court of Appeal.
Kanu is currently serving a life sentence at the Sokoto Prison following his conviction on terrorism charges by Justice James Omotosho of an Abuja Federal High Court on November 20, 2025.
DAILY POST gathers that the IPOB leader’s defence team is putting finishing touches to an appeal that will challenge the judgment of the Abuja Federal High Court.
Giving an insight into the appeal in a statement on Tuesday, the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, in a statement by Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, listed a number of what it described as “errors” made by the trial court in its “haste” to convict the IPOB leader.
The defence team declared that the Nigerian government had no right to prosecute Kanu for broadcasts he made in the United Kingdom, UK.
The broadcasts, made via Radio Biafra, a station said to be registered in the UK, formed major part of the evidence tendered by the government against Kanu.
However, Njoku noted that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, under which Kanu was charged, required that the alleged terrorism act must be an offence in Nigeria as well as in the country where it occurred.
“Nigeria had no right to try Mazi Nnamdi Kanu for alleged broadcasts made in the United Kingdom. The prosecution’s case was anchored on broadcasts made from London, United Kingdom. Criminal jurisdiction is territorial unless strictly expanded by statute. The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act requires compliance with extraterritorial gateways, including double criminality.
“No evidence was led that Kanu’s alleged broadcasts were criminal offences under UK law. Justice Omotosho never determined where the offence occurred before assuming jurisdiction,” the statement said, adding that the implication was that jurisdiction was assumed and not earned.
“A Nigerian court cannot jail a man for conduct lawfully done abroad. The conviction is void from inception,” the statement argued, stressing that the court never proved “double criminality” as required by law, in line Section 76(1)(d)(iii) TPPA which requires that alleged foreign conduct must be criminal in both countries.
“No evidence was led on UK criminal law. No finding was made that Kanu committed any offence under UK law. A mandatory jurisdictional gateway was never crossed. The court never entered lawful territory,” the statement said.
The defense team equally pointed out that the court never proved that anything Kanu allegedly said in the broadcasts was heard or acted upon in Nigeria, as no witness testified that they listened to the broadcasts.
“No evidence of reception, audience, or Nigerian listener was produced. Speech cannot intimidate, incite, or terrorise in a vacuum. Criminal law requires impact, not imagination,” the statement said, noting that essential elements of the offence were missing, and that the prosecution proved content, not effect.
The defence team further alleged a case of manipulation, claiming that the prosecution secretly removed “London, United Kingdom” from the charge after spying on Kanu’s legal consultation.
The statement added, “During an October meeting at DSS headquarters, the British Consul met with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Kanu raised the legality of trying him in Nigeria for an offence allegedly committed in the UK. DSS recorded and listened to that lawyer-client conversation. Shortly after, the prosecution removed the UK location from the charge sheet.
“This was a deliberate attempt to evade territorial jurisdiction scrutiny.
“The charge was manipulated through illegal eavesdropping. Prosecutorial misconduct of this nature poisons the entire case. The conviction is unsalvageable.”
The defence team, in the same vein, insisted that as Kanu was abducted and not extradited, Nigerian courts cannot try people kidnapped from foreign countries.
“Kanu was forcibly abducted from Kenya. No extradition request was made. No Kenyan court approved his transfer. Section 46(1) ACJA requires lawful arrest and presentation before a competent court. Kenyan courts later declared the abduction illegal,” the statement said, noting that as a result, his detention was unlawful, jurisdiction never arose and the entire trial was void ab initio.
The statement added, “A court cannot benefit from an illegal abduction to secure a conviction. The state chose kidnapping over lawful extradition.
International law and the African Charter forbid arbitrary arrest and transfer.
Nigerian courts are bound by the African Charter (Abacha v. Fawehinmi). Justice Omotosho ignored binding treaty obligations.The trial legitimised executive lawlessness. Jurisdiction was morally and legally bankrupt. Retrial is barred.”
Kanu’s defence team further pointed out that the Abuja Federal High Court ignored foreign judgments declaring Kanu’s abduction illegal.
“Kenyan High Court decisions condemning the rendition were pleaded.
The prosecution did not challenge them. Courts must give effect to uncontroverted judicial findings. Silence is admission in law,” the statement said, adding that the trial proceeded in defiance of binding facts and therefore, the conviction cannot stand.
Accusing the court of relying on an obsolete doctrine to excuse illegality, the defence team said the trial court punished Kanu for insisting on legality.
Faulting proceedings in the trial, the statement said jurisdictional objections were treated as delays even as the court elevated “speed” over constitutional compliance, while rights were reframed as obstruction.
Insisting that Kanu’s trial was unconstitutional, the defence team said the conduct of the court reversed the hierarchy of law.