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

In the new motion titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support” and dated October 30, 2025, Kanu argued that there is “no charge or counts cognisable within the corpus juris of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” against him, describing the charges as “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”

The IPOB leader, who is personally representing himself in court, filed the motion 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.

He urged the court to strike out the “purported charge” in its entirety, arguing that the prosecution relied on repealed and non-existent laws — specifically, the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022.

He added that with those statutes now repealed, the charges are legally flawed and run afoul of the principle of legality set out in Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which bars trying anyone for an offence that isn’t defined in any existing law.

He further invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022) in which the apex court instructed courts to take judicial notice of any repealed or otherwise defunct statutes, under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011. Kanu maintained that a failure to follow that directive “renders all proceedings void ab initio” citing NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 598.

The motion also raised jurisdictional concerns over alleged offences said to have been committed in Kenya. Kanu noted that counts 1 to 6 in the charge sheet “contravene Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022,” which requires validation by a Kenyan court confirming that the acts are criminal under Kenyan law before trial in Nigeria.

He argued that the prosecution’s failure to meet this condition nullifies Nigeria’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Quoting Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Kanu maintained that any law or proceeding inconsistent with the Constitution is void, adding that his continued trial and detention have no constitutional basis.

The IPOB leader also cited earlier judicial precedents, including Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where courts nullified convictions based on non-existent offences.

Kanu concluded his motion by urging the court to compel the prosecution to respond strictly on points of law within three days and to deliver a ruling on or before Tuesday, November 4, 2025.

He stressed 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 requires no supporting affidavit.

“The Defendant/Applicant has complied with this Honourable Court’s directive of 27 October 2025 by filing a comprehensive written address asserting that no valid or cognisable charge subsists against him, either under extant Nigerian statutes or any law recognized in Kenya,” part of the motion reads.

The motion also raised jurisdictional concerns over alleged offences said to have been committed in Kenya. Kanu noted that counts 1 to 6 in the charge sheet “contravene Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022,” which requires validation by a Kenyan court confirming that the acts are criminal under Kenyan law before trial in Nigeria.

He argued that the prosecution’s failure to meet this condition nullifies Nigeria’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Quoting Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Kanu maintained that any law or proceeding inconsistent with the Constitution is void, adding that his continued trial and detention have no constitutional basis.

The IPOB leader also cited earlier judicial precedents, including Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where courts nullified convictions based on non-existent offences.

He concluded his motion by urging the court to compel the prosecution to respond strictly on points of law within three days and to deliver a ruling on or before Tuesday, November 4, 2025. He stressed 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 requires no supporting affidavit.

“The Defendant/Applicant has complied with this Honourable Court’s directive of 27 October 2025 by filing a comprehensive written address asserting that no valid or cognisable charge subsists against him, either under extant Nigerian statutes or any law recognized in Kenya,” part of the motion reads.