December 16, 2025 — Dalena Reporters
A United Kingdom-based human rights lawyer, Jude Njoku Jude, has publicly criticised the trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, alleging “gross legal errors” and accusing Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja of judicial misconduct and constitutional violations in the handling of the high-profile terrorism case.
In a detailed statement issued from the UK, Jude outlined a series of what he called “legal missiles” fundamental faults he says plagued the trial proceedings, challenging the conviction and calling for its overturn. According to the lawyer, the trial was conducted under repealed legislation, without proper jurisdiction, and in disregard of both Nigerian and international law.
Jude asserted that Kanu was convicted under the now-obsolete Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 rather than the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, which was in force at the time of the trial. He cited Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which forbids conviction for offences not defined under the law in force at trial, arguing that this alone invalidates the conviction. He claimed that despite repeated reminders from Kanu — “Show me the law” — the court failed to correct this alleged error.
Allegations Of Lack Of Jurisdiction
Jude further contended that the Federal High Court lacked proper jurisdiction to try Kanu, noting that the court did not legally establish its authority before proceeding a requirement under long-standing judicial principles. In his view, postponing determination of jurisdiction to judgment undermined the legality of each step taken thereafter.
A significant part of the critique focused on Kanu’s rendition from Kenya, which the lawyer described as an abduction rather than lawful extradition. Jude argued that the absence of formal Kenyan judicial approval for the transfer rendered subsequent Nigerian proceedings questionable under both international law and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Jude also disputed the court’s authority to try Kanu for alleged broadcast offences said to have been committed outside Nigeria — particularly in the United Kingdom — asserting that Nigerian law requires proof that such broadcasts were received in Nigeria or held legal force there. He characterised the assumption of jurisdiction as “assumed, not earned.
Enumerating at least 17 alleged failings — including reliance on repealed laws, judicial contradictions, jurisdictional defects and failure to respect international norms — Jude described the trial as a “constitutional ambush”, concluding that an acquittal is mandatory. He said his legal team is preparing challenges aimed at overturning the conviction and holding judicial actors accountable.
The criticism adds to broader debate over the legal process surrounding Kanu’s prosecution, which has included defence claims of procedural irregularities, jurisdictional disputes and constitutional concerns. Independent observers have noted that the case has repeatedly tested legal interpretations of fair trial standards and judicial conduct in terrorism prosecutions in Nigeria.
As Nigeria’s judicial and political landscape continues to grapple with the ramifications of the case, the statement by the UK-based lawyer is likely to intensify scrutiny of legal procedures and calls for careful judicial review in the coming months.