Nnamdi Kanu Files Preliminary Objection over “Illegal Rendition, Repealed Law”
In a dramatic turn in Nigeria’s ongoing confrontation with separatist agitators, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), **Nnamdi Kanu**, has filed a **preliminary objection** seeking to halt or throw out portions of his trial. The grounds he cites are bold: (1) that his return to Nigeria was executed by *illegal rendition*, and (2) that the law under which he is being tried is *repealed* and thus no longer valid. 0
What is a Preliminary Objection?
A preliminary objection is a legal instrument used **before** the main trial begins (or before substantive hearings) to challenge a case on jurisdictional or procedural grounds. In simpler terms, it is a motion asking the court to dismiss or stay the case before getting into the merits of guilt or innocence. If successful, it means the trial itself may be invalidated or substantially narrowed without a full trial.
Core Arguments in Kanu’s Motion
Kanu’s legal team has advanced several interlocking arguments in the objection:
- Illegal Rendition / “Extraordinary Rendition”: They contend that Kanu was forcibly taken from Kenya in 2021 and brought to Nigeria without proper extradition or legal process. This, they argue, violated constitutional guarantees of fair process under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as Nigeria’s Extradition Act and relevant international human rights treaties. 1 Because the prosecution was built on a process that they claim is unlawful to begin with, the defence argues the Nigerian courts lack jurisdiction to try him. In their phrasing: “jurisdiction cannot be conferred by illegality.” 2
- Repealed Law: Kanu’s lawyers argue that the charges against him are based on the **Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013**, which they say has been replaced by the **Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022**. Thus, they claim, no valid criminal liability can stand under a statute that no longer exists. 3 Further, they seek declarations that the state’s continuing use of the repealed statute (and related counts) is unconstitutional and void. 4
- Unconstitutional Proscription & Fair Hearing Violations: The defence also challenges the order proscribing IPOB as an “unlawful society,” alleging it was obtained ex parte (without the group’s notification or chance to be heard) and while a prior ruling (by Justice Binta Nyako) declared IPOB was not unlawful. 5 In addition, they argue that state interference — eavesdropping on privileged lawyer-client communications, seizure of legal materials, and denial of adequate facilities — further undermines fair trial rights. 6
Relief Sought
Kanu is asking the court to:
- Strike out or permanently stay counts of the amended charge (except for Count 15) that are built on repealed or defective laws.
- Declare that continued prosecution under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act is null and void.
- Nullify any portion of the case built on the proscription of IPOB (as unconstitutional in their view).
- Declare that his rendition was unlawful, vitiating the court’s authority over his person.
- Invalidate any proceedings done in breach of his rights to fair hearing, adequate defence, and confidentiality. 7
Legal & Political Stakes
This move is significant both legally and politically. If the court accepts any or all parts of the preliminary objection, it could reduce or dismantle large portions of the government’s case against him without a full trial.
The government, unsurprisingly, opposes the motion. They argue that the charges have proper standing, and that the trial must continue. 8
There is already history here: in October 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld a preliminary objection by Kanu, quashing several charges, on grounds including the illegality of his rendition. 9 But in December 2023, the Supreme Court reversed that decision and ordered the trial restarted in the Federal High Court. 10 Thus, the current motion is part of a re-litigation of those contested jurisdictional and procedural issues.
The climax: the court must now determine whether to proceed with the trial or first resolve these threshold questions. How the court rules will affect Kanu’s legal fate, set precedent about the limits of court jurisdiction after illegal rendition, and define how repealed statutes may or may not be applied in prosecutions.
What Happens Next?
The court will schedule a hearing of the objection. At that hearing, both sides will present arguments and authorities (cases, constitutional provisions, treaty obligations). The judge will either grant or dismiss parts or all of the preliminary objection.
If the objection is upheld, some or all of the charges may be struck down — even before evidence and witnesses are examined. If rejected, the trial proceeds, and Kanu will have to begin his defence.
In sum: Nnamdi Kanu’s legal strategy now seeks to knock out the foundations of the state’s case — by arguing that the court has no business trying him at all, either due to the way he was brought into Nigeria or due to the laws being invalid. Whether this tactic succeeds will depend on how convincingly the court believes those arguments.