A United Kingdom-based human rights lawyer, Jude Njoku Jude, has accused Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja of grave legal and constitutional errors in the trial of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In a detailed statement circulated to the media, Jude alleged that the proceedings against Kanu were fundamentally flawed, claiming the conviction was secured without jurisdiction, under a repealed law, and in violation of both Nigerian constitutional provisions and international legal standards.

According to the lawyer, the cumulative effect of these alleged errors renders the conviction invalid and incapable of standing under the law.

Conviction under repealed legislation

Central to Jude’s argument is the claim that Kanu was convicted under the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013, despite the fact that the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2022 was already in force at the time of trial and conviction.

He cited Section 36 subsection 12 of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits the conviction of any person for an offence unless it is defined and prescribed by a law in force at the time of trial.

According to Jude, Justice Omotosho was repeatedly alerted to this issue during the proceedings. He alleged that Kanu himself challenged the court, asking that the applicable law be identified.

“The court was invited several times to point to the law in force,” Jude said. “Those requests were ignored.”

He argued that prosecuting under a repealed statute stripped the court of jurisdiction from the outset and that a retrial would be legally impossible since a valid law existed but was not applied.

Claims of judicial contradiction

Jude further accused the trial judge of contradicting himself during the proceedings. According to the lawyer, Justice Omotosho initially acknowledged that a conviction based on a repealed law would be unlawful, yet proceeded to convict Kanu regardless.

He referenced the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a court from adopting one legal position and later acting in direct opposition to it.

“This is not a minor procedural issue,” Jude said. “It goes to the integrity of the entire judgment.”

Jurisdictional concerns raised

The lawyer also faulted the court for failing to resolve jurisdictional objections before proceeding with the trial. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, Jude stressed that jurisdiction is the foundation upon which judicial authority rests.

He argued that deferring jurisdictional questions until judgment was legally improper and rendered all subsequent steps null.

“A court cannot postpone the source of its own authority,” he stated.

Rendition from Kenya and international law

Another major aspect of Jude’s critique focused on Kanu’s transfer from Kenya to Nigeria. According to him, the IPOB leader was abducted rather than lawfully extradited.

He claimed that no Kenyan court sanctioned the transfer and that international law prohibits the use of force or illegal rendition to secure criminal prosecution.

Jude added that both international conventions and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights forbid arbitrary arrest and cross-border transfer, obligations he said were ignored during the trial.

Extraterritorial broadcast allegations

Jude also questioned the court’s authority to try Kanu over alleged broadcasts made while he was in the United Kingdom. He said the prosecution failed to prove that the broadcasts were received in Nigeria or that they constituted offences under UK law, a requirement under Nigerian anti-terrorism legislation for extraterritorial offences.

“Jurisdiction was assumed, not established,” he said.

Legal team prepares further challenges

According to Jude, at least 17 major legal failures occurred during the trial, ranging from reliance on repealed laws to alleged violations of international legal principles. He described the proceedings as punitive rather than judicial and insisted that acquittal is the only lawful outcome.

Speaking from the UK, Jude said legal efforts are already underway to challenge the conviction through appropriate judicial channels.

“This is only the beginning,” he said. “We are determined to ensure accountability and to uphold the rule of law.”

The comments have once again drawn attention to the legal and political controversy surrounding Kanu’s case, which has continued to attract both domestic and international scrutiny, particularly over the legality of his rendition and the conduct of the trial.