The legal team defending the detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has rejected the recent ruling delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
According to the group, the judgement is “void, unconstitutional and unsustainable in law.” The position was made public by the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium.
The team issued a detailed reaction on Saturday, insisting that the decision handed down on November 20, 2025, cannot stand.
Justice Omotosho had found Kanu guilty on a seven-count charge connected to terrorism and leadership of a proscribed organisation.
This ruling came despite an earlier judgement of the Enugu High Court in 2023, which struck out the proscription of IPOB and declared it invalid.
In their response, the defence team argued that the entire conviction rested on a law that, according to them, no longer exists.
The statement, signed by Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., stated that the court relied on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, a statute they insist was already repealed.
According to the team, Section 104 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 wiped out the old 2013 law.
They stressed that once a law is repealed, it cannot be applied in any criminal conviction.
Quoting the Constitution, the consortium pointed to Section 36(12), which demands that any offence must be contained in a valid “written law” still in force.
They said the repealed 2013 Act no longer met that requirement.
“The 20 November 2025 judgment delivered by Hon. Justice James Omotosho in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu is unsustainable in law, untenable under the Constitution, and void for want of jurisdiction,” their statement read.
“This is not rhetoric,” they added, calling it a direct constitutional breach.
The defence also dismissed the argument that the government could rely on a savings clause in the 2022 Act. They said such clauses can only retain ongoing cases, not revive a law that has already been replaced.
The team further argued that Kanu had already been discharged by the Court of Appeal on 13 October 2022.
With no valid case pending, they described everything filed afterwards as a fresh proceeding that could not be saved by any transitional provision.
They also highlighted that the 2022 terrorism law changed the definition of terrorism in Nigeria.
Under the new law, according to them, violent acts or grievous harm must be proven.
They added that peaceful political activities, agitation, or advocacy cannot be considered terrorism.
The consortium said the allegations against Kanu revolve around “speeches, broadcasts and political advocacy,” which they believe fall outside the present legal definition.
They accused the court of ignoring Section 36(8) of the Constitution, which requires judges to apply the more favourable law when statutes change.
The defence maintained that the ruling violated multiple constitutional provisions, including Sections 1(3), 36(8), 36(9) and 36(12).
They said the judgement lacked jurisdiction and would not survive any meaningful appeal.
An appeal, they confirmed, will be filed without delay.
“This judgment will not survive appellate scrutiny,” the team stated, adding that the Court of Appeal will “restore legality.”
The consortium expressed confidence that the decision will be overturned.
“We remain confident that the Court of Appeal will restore legality, uphold constitutional norms, and vacate this defective conviction,” Njoku concluded.
WARNING: If You Are Not 18+, Don’t Click The Link Below 👇🫣
https://massivemanuscriptestimated.com/kx6iepv2qm?key=6c14bd1d68e1eba721851f19778f5efe
Please don’t forget to “Allow the notification” so you will be the first to get our gist when we publish it.
Drop your comment in the section below, and don’t forget to share the post.
Never Miss A Single News Or Gist, Kindly Join Us On WhatsApp Channel:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vad8g81Eawdsio6INn3B
Telegram Channel:
https://t.me/gistsmateNG
