IPOB legal team challenges legality of Nnamdi Kanu’s trial

DDM News

The legal team representing the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a formal challenge against the ongoing trial of its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) reports that the team cited grave breaches of legal procedures and jurisdictional requirements, describing the trial as unconstitutional and fundamentally flawed.

The statement, released by Barrister Onyekachi Ifedi on behalf of IPOB’s Directorate of Legal Affairs, raised concerns over what it termed procedural violations and illegality in the manner of Kanu’s rendition from Kenya to Nigeria.

According to IPOB’s legal argument, Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, mandates that before any terrorism-related charge is tried, the alleged crime must be recognised under the laws of the extraditing country.

The lawyers argued that Kenyan authorities never initiated any judicial process recognizing the alleged offenses before Kanu was transferred, thus nullifying the jurisdiction of any Nigerian court over the matter.

They further referenced the Principle of Specialty under international law, which restricts prosecution to only those charges listed in a formal extradition process.

According to the legal team, Kanu’s transfer did not follow this principle, as there was no formal extradition from Kenya, making his continued prosecution illegal under both Nigerian and international legal frameworks.

The team also cited Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act, which directs that terrorism trials be conducted in locations connected to the alleged acts or their consequences.

Since most of the allegations against Kanu involve activities outside Nigeria, especially in the United Kingdom and Kenya, IPOB questions why Abuja was selected as the venue.

IPOB accused the Federal Government of interfering in judicial processes and attempting to influence the outcome of Kanu’s case through public statements.

The group condemned recent remarks by Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, who had accused IPOB of orchestrating violent attacks on police facilities and correctional centres.

IPOB described those comments as prejudicial, inflammatory, and an attempt to pressure the judiciary and compromise the fair trial rights of its leader.

Kanu’s legal battle has reignited the controversy surrounding the Biafra movement and intensified public discourse around issues of fair trial, due process, and federal overreach.

Opinions remain sharply divided among the Nigerian public, with some describing IPOB as a threat to national unity, while others insist that Kanu is being unjustly prosecuted for advocating self-determination.

International observers and legal analysts are closely watching the case, which has drawn global interest due to its human rights implications and the geopolitical sensitivities surrounding the Biafra question.

Nnamdi Kanu faces charges of terrorism, incitement, and criminal conspiracy as filed by the Federal Government, but his lawyers continue to argue that his detention and trial violate Nigerian and international law.

The Federal Government has not officially responded to the latest objections raised by the IPOB legal team.

As the legal debate intensifies, concerns are growing about the implications of the trial for Nigeria’s international image, constitutional integrity, and peace in the South-East region.

Legal experts are also calling for strict adherence to constitutional safeguards and international norms in prosecuting cases with political and international dimensions.

Meanwhile, supporters of IPOB continue to demand Kanu’s unconditional release, calling the entire trial process an affront to human rights and justice.

With the trial still in its early stages under Justice Omotosho at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the IPOB legal team insists it will pursue all lawful avenues to halt what it calls an illegal prosecution.

The court has yet to rule on the admissibility of the jurisdictional and procedural objections raised by Kanu’s defense.

Analysts say the outcome of this legal battle may set a significant precedent for how Nigeria handles politically sensitive extradition and terrorism cases going forward.

As the matter unfolds, many are waiting to see whether the judiciary will assert its independence in the face of rising political and public pressure.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook