Kanu’s Trial Cannot Proceed Without Jurisdiction Ruling, Defence Warns

A lawyer representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has warned that the ongoing trial at the Federal High Court cannot lawfully continue until two pending motions challenging the court’s jurisdiction are heard and determined.

Speaking in a public legal alert issued on Monday, counsel to Kanu, Christopher Chidera, Esq., accused the trial judge of refusing to hear motions that go to the foundation of the case.

According to him, the motions include a “Motion to Arrest Judgment” filed on November 10 and a consolidated preliminary objection filed the next day, challenging the legality of the charge, Kanu’s alleged extraordinary rendition, violations of fair hearing, and prosecution under laws that no longer exist.

He said the prosecution, led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, has not filed any response to the motions, despite being served.

“There is no counter-affidavit, no written address, and no attempt to defend the legality of their own charge,” Chidera said.

“This is not negligence. This is a calculated gamble that the court will ignore the law, ignore the motions, and deliver a conviction under a statute that was repealed three years ago.”

The defence insisted that the law is settled: once jurisdiction is challenged, a court must stop and resolve it before taking any further step.

“For sixty-three years, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has spoken with one voice,” Chidera noted.

He argued that, “When jurisdiction is challenged, the court must stop and determine it immediately. Nothing else can proceed.”

He cited several Supreme Court authorities, including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962), which established that any proceeding conducted without jurisdiction is “a nullity ab initio”, and A-G Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989), where the apex court held that a judge is “bound to down tools” once jurisdiction is questioned.

“The position is not discretionary,” he said, adding that “There is no such thing in Nigerian law as ‘wait until final address.’”

The lawyer warned that if the court proceeds to deliver judgment on November 20 without first hearing and ruling on the motions, the verdict will “be a certified constitutional nullity” and will be struck out by the Court of Appeal.

He further noted that such an action would expose the trial judge to possible disciplinary measures “for denying a fair hearing and pronouncing judgment over silence.”

“This moment is historic,” he said. “Justice Omotosho will either obey the Constitution or write his name permanently into the hall of judicial infamy as the judge who convicted a man under a repealed statute while refusing to hear him.”

He called on the National Judicial Council, the Nigerian Bar Association, and the international community to take notice, warning that the implications go beyond the Kanu case.

“No Nigerian is safe if a court can ignore jurisdiction, ignore repealed laws, ignore binding appellate decisions, and ignore the defendant simply because the case is politically sensitive,” he said.

The defence team maintained that it has complied with all legal procedures and now awaits the judge’s decision on whether he will entertain the motions before ruling.

“The world is watching,” Chidera warned, declaring that “We have exhausted every legal avenue. The law is clear. The Constitution is clear. There is no lawful way forward except to determine jurisdiction first.”