BREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu Files Fresh Preliminary Objection to Stop Trial Over Illegal Rendition, Repealed Terrorism Law

• Detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh preliminary objection before the Federal High Court, asking it to halt his ongoing terrorism trial.

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a preliminary objection before the Federal High Court Abuja, seeking to strike out or permanently stay his ongoing trial on terrorism-related charges.

In the motion dated October 16, 2025, Kanu’s legal team argued that the Federal Government of Nigeria is prosecuting him in violation of constitutional provisions, international law, and judicial precedents. The defence insisted that the continued trial is null and void because it is based on the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013, which has been replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

Kanu is asking the court to declare that his prosecution under a repealed law is unconstitutional and that the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed, given his alleged extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021 without due extradition process. He contends that this act violated the Extradition Act (Cap E25 LFN 2004), Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, and relevant provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

His motion further challenges the 2017 proscription of IPOB, describing it as unconstitutional and obtained through an ex parte process that denied him fair hearing. Kanu’s lawyers referenced an earlier ruling by Justice Binta Nyako, who had held that IPOB was not an unlawful organization, stressing that the proscription order contravened this binding judicial finding.

DON’T MISS: BREAKING: NMA Declares Nnamdi Kanu Fit to Face Trial Says ‘No Health Excuse’

The IPOB leader also asked the court to strike out several counts in the amended charge sheet for violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, arguing that they contain the same factual elements as counts earlier dismissed by the court in April 2022.

In addition, Kanu accused the Federal Government of contempt of court for continuing to prosecute him despite the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 judgment that discharged him of all charges. Citing the precedent in Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State (1986), his defence maintained that the government cannot seek the indulgence of a court it has openly defied.

The motion also alleged that Kanu’s right to a fair trial had been grossly violated through the seizure of legal materials, the restriction of confidential communication with his lawyers, and reported surveillance during meetings, all of which contravene Section 36(6)(b–d) of the Constitution.

Kanu’s legal team emphasised that the process leading to his re-arraignment was fundamentally tainted by illegality, insisting that “jurisdiction cannot be conferred by illegality.” They relied on the decision in FRN v. Kanu (CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022), where the court held that unlawful rendition strips a Nigerian court of jurisdiction to try the defendant.

The motion seeks declarations nullifying all charges framed under repealed laws, setting aside the ex parte proscription of IPOB, and affirming that Kanu’s continued detention violates his right to liberty and fair hearing. It also asks the court to restore him to the status quo ante—the position he was in before his alleged abduction and transfer from Kenya.

The case continues before the Federal High Court, where Justice Nyako is expected to determine whether the constitutional and procedural breaches alleged by Kanu are sufficient to terminate the prosecution.