Omotosho’s First Jurisdictional Failure — The Court Lacked Authority to Try Kanu

• The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium has alleged that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to try Kanu on March 21, 2025, arguing that the charge sheet was founded on repealed terrorism legislation.

The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium has alleged that the Federal High Court lacked the legal jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, on March 21, 2025.

The claim was contained in a public briefing note issued on October 5, 2026, by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., on behalf of the consortium.

The briefing note, titled “The First Jurisdictional Failure: The Charge Sheet Was a Legal Corpse,” forms Part 1 of what the consortium described as a 150-part forensic examination of Kanu’s trial and conviction.

According to the legal group, the Federal Government has abandoned the appeal by allegedly failing to file its brief or substantive defence within the required period.

The consortium argued that the central issue before the appellate court should first be whether the Federal High Court was lawfully seized of Kanu’s case before considering questions surrounding his guilt or innocence.

It further alleged that Justice James Omotosho committed more than 150 errors during the trial and conviction of Kanu, saying the first alleged failure occurred at the level of the charge sheet.

Charge Sheet as Foundation of Jurisdiction

The briefing note relied heavily on previous Supreme Court pronouncements concerning the legal importance of a criminal charge.

It cited the Supreme Court as describing the charge sheet as “the first port of call and the sole foundation of criminal jurisdiction.”

The consortium argued that before a court can receive evidence, take a plea or conduct a criminal trial, it must first have lawful authority over the case.

It specifically referred to a December 15, 2023 decision in which Justice Lawal Garba of the Supreme Court outlined a two-stage test, beginning with whether the statutes or Acts stated in a charge were valid and subsisting laws providing for the offences charged.

The briefing note emphasized the Supreme Court’s use of the word “if” in proceeding to the second stage, arguing that the second stage could only arise after an affirmative answer to the first question.

Dispute Over Terrorism Legislation

A major part of the consortium’s argument concerns the terrorism legislation cited in Kanu’s charge.

According to the briefing note, the charge invoked the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 had already come into force on May 12, 2022, repealing the earlier terrorism legislation.

The consortium therefore contended that the 2013 legislation cited in the charge was no longer a subsisting terrorism statute when proceedings resumed on March 21, 2025.

It argued that this meant the statutory foundation of the charge failed the first jurisdictional test identified by the Supreme Court.

The legal group maintained that the issue was not dependent on evidence, witness credibility or documents tendered during the trial, but on whether the charge itself had a valid legal foundation.

‘Remittal Does Not Create Jurisdiction’

The consortium also rejected the suggestion that the Supreme Court’s decision to remit the case gave the trial court an unrestricted authority to continue proceedings.

It argued that remittal could not automatically cure a defective charge or revive repealed legislation.

The briefing note cited the Supreme Court as stating that “Not even this Court can confer jurisdiction where none exists.”

According to the consortium, neither the taking of Kanu’s plea, the presentation of evidence, the conduct of the trial nor the eventual conviction could retrospectively create jurisdiction if it was absent at the beginning of the proceedings.

Reliance on Madukolu Case

The legal group also invoked the longstanding Supreme Court decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, arguing that a court must be properly constituted and that a case must come before it through due process of law and fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

The consortium said the principle was directly relevant to Kanu’s case because, in its view, the criminal proceedings had to begin through a valid process capable of invoking the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction.

It further argued that evidence, witnesses, a plea, a ruling, conviction or sentence could not independently create jurisdiction.

Kanu’s Challenge to Charge Sheet

The briefing note said Kanu himself had directly challenged the legal foundation of the charge during proceedings.

It quoted Kanu as stating:

“My charge sheet as presently constituted does not reveal or disclose any written law in Nigeria… It doesn’t exist.”

According to the consortium, Kanu’s challenge required the court to identify the specific law, statute and offence forming the legal basis of the charge.

The group argued that the question remained unresolved despite the court’s refusal to allow Kanu to make certain references at that stage of proceedings.

Consortium Questions Whether Prong A Was Answered

The consortium said the Supreme Court had already established the test that required the trial court to examine the statutes stated in the charge before proceeding.

It consequently posed the question of whether Justice Omotosho had determined that the statutes cited in the charge were valid and subsisting laws before proceeding with the trial.

The group’s answer was no.

It argued that because the statutory foundation stated in the charge allegedly failed the first stage of the Supreme Court’s test, the second stage could not arise and the trial should not have proceeded.

‘A Properly Conducted Trial Cannot Cure Lack of Jurisdiction’

The consortium maintained that the argument was not about whether the trial itself was properly conducted.

According to the briefing note, even a trial involving extensive evidence, numerous witnesses, documents and a detailed judgment could not cure an alleged fundamental defect in jurisdiction.

The group therefore said the Court of Appeal should begin its consideration of the case with the charge sheet and determine whether the statutes stated in it were valid and subsisting laws capable of supporting the offences charged.

The consortium argued that if the answer was negative, the Federal High Court could not have been lawfully seized of the case on March 21, 2025.

Consortium: ‘Jurisdiction Never Attached’

In its concluding argument, the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium said Justice Omotosho was not given a “blank cheque” by the Supreme Court but was required to pass through a jurisdictional gateway beginning with examination of the charge.

It reiterated that the Supreme Court’s test required the court to determine whether the statutes stated in the charge were valid and subsisting laws providing for the offences charged before moving to the next stage.

The consortium alleged that the answer was not affirmative and that the jurisdictional gateway therefore failed.

It concluded that “jurisdiction never attached on 21 March 2025,” describing the charge sheet as a “legal corpse.”

The document was issued on October 5, 2026, by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium.