By Emeka Ugwuonye
A persistent narrative among supporters of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is that the Nigerian government is prosecuting him under a non-existent law. This claim, often framed as the court lacking authority, is a fundamental error that collapses under a straightforward examination of Nigeria’s legal timeline and constitutional provisions.
The argument that “the law does not exist” is not true. When Kanu was first arrested in 2015, the legal framework was unequivocally provided by the Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2011, as amended in 2013. This legislation was duly passed by the National Assembly and signed into law. Crucially, Section 30 of the 2013 Amendment explicitly granted the Federal High Court jurisdiction to try terrorism offences “located in any part of Nigeria.” The law also clearly defined acts of terrorism, encompassing the very conduct Kanu was accused of.
Upon his re-arrest in 2021, the legal landscape had evolved but had not vanished. The existing law was consolidated and strengthened by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022. This new act did not create a legal vacuum; instead, it reinforced the court’s jurisdiction under Section 32(1), which again gives the Federal High Court exclusive authority to try such offences. Kanu’s alleged actions—including incitement and the organization of a militant wing—remain illegal under every iteration of Nigeria’s anti-terrorism laws from 2011 to the present.
Furthermore, the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria provides an independent and robust legal anchor. Section 251(1)(a) grants the Federal High Court inherent jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the Federal Government, including crimes against the state like treason and terrorism. This constitutional power exists irrespective of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
In conclusion, the claim of a non-existent law is a rhetorical distraction, not a legal reality. From the 2011/2013 Acts governing his initial trial to the 2022 Act and the Constitution underpinning his current prosecution, the legal foundation has been consistently solid. The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court has never been in doubt. Justice must be grounded in the law as it is written, not nullified by semantic arguments and emotional appeals that ignore established legal facts.
NOTE: Ignorance is the greatest problem facing Kanu’s supporters. Right from inception, they refused to listen to advice. It has been so sad watching them repeat the same mistakes. They start with anger and insults: we just blocked ten of them for rudeness.