Nnamdi Kanu Files Fresh Motion, Says His Trial Is Void Due To Four Jurisdictional Defects

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a new oral brief before the Federal High Court, Abuja, asking the court to terminate the terrorism proceedings against him because the case is “void ab initio” due to four fundamental legal defects.

In the filing titled “Brief of Oral Argument on Vitiating Defects” in suit FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu, who is representing himself, argued that the defects strike at the jurisdiction of the court and therefore render the entire trial incompetent.

1. Contempt of Court and Appellate Finality

Kanu contended that the Federal Government remains in contempt of a subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had discharged and acquitted him in 2022. He maintained that by the doctrine of appellate finality, the lower court lost jurisdiction the moment the appellate judgment was delivered, and that no fresh trial could proceed until the Supreme Court set the decision aside.

READ ALSO: Nnamdi Kanu Insists On Defending Himself, Challenges Court Jurisdiction

“A contemnor cannot seek relief from a court while in continuing disobedience,” Kanu argued, citing Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621.

2. Failure to Take Judicial Notice of Statutory Repeal

The IPOB leader further claimed that the court has failed to take judicial notice of the repeal of the statute under which he is being tried. Referring to Section 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, he said a court must, suo motu, acknowledge any change or repeal in legislation.

“Proceedings conducted in ignorance of a statutory repeal are void ab initio,” Kanu argued, citing NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 559) 598 (CA).

3. Denial of Fair Hearing

Kanu also alleged a breach of his right to fair hearing under Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
He told the court that after nearly five years in detention, he was granted only three hours of monitored consultation with his lawyers inside the courtroom on the eve of opening his defence in a capital case.

“That is not fair hearing — it is judicial perversity,” Kanu said, citing several Supreme Court authorities to support his claim.

4. Reliance on an Allegedly Forged Medical Report

The defendant further alleged that the court’s earlier ruling declaring him fit to stand trial was based on a forged medical report. According to him, the report was dated 23 September 2025, even though the court’s order for medical evaluation was issued on 26 September 2025, suggesting that no genuine examination ever took place.

“Reliance on that fraudulent document vitiates the ruling. Fraus omnia corrumpit fraud destroys everything,” he submitted.

Summarizing his argument, Kanu said the four issues contempt of appellate authority, failure to take judicial notice, denial of fair hearing, and reliance on forgery strip the court of jurisdiction as laid out in the landmark case Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.

He therefore urged the court, ex debito justitiae, to declare the proceedings null and void and terminate the trial immediately in obedience to the rule of law.

The application was made orally before Justice James Omotosho at the Federal High Court, Abuja. The Federal Government, represented by its legal team, is expected to respond when proceedings resume on October 24, 2025 formally.