A lawyer representing Nnamdi Kanu has claimed that the Federal Government has not filed a brief in its appeal concerning the separatist leader’s conviction.
A member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, made the claim on Monday, as the defence team said it was exploring ways for the appeal to be heard.
The team alleged that the Federal Government had filed no substantive defence to the appeal and argued that the issue of jurisdiction would be central to the proceedings.
He said the first issue to be considered was whether the Federal High Court was lawfully seized of Kanu’s case before proceeding with his trial.
According to him, the Supreme Court had identified the charge sheet as the starting point for determining criminal jurisdiction.
He quoted the Supreme Court as describing the charge sheet as “the first port of call and the sole foundation of criminal jurisdiction.”
The lawyer further referred to a decision attributed to Justice Lawal Garba of the Supreme Court, which set out questions concerning whether the statutes or Acts stated in a charge were valid and subsisting laws providing for the offences charged.
He particularly relied on the wording, “If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative,” arguing that the second stage of the test depended on an affirmative answer to the first.
Ifedi subsequently challenged the statutory basis of the charge against Kanu, arguing that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 cited in the charge had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He therefore argued that the Federal High Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction when proceedings resumed on March 21, 2025.
The lawyer also cited the Supreme Court’s statement that “Not even this Court can confer jurisdiction where none exists” in support of his argument.
He further relied on the decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, which states that a court must have a case brought before it through due process and fulfil any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Ifedi said Kanu had also challenged the legal basis of the charge during proceedings, quoting him as saying: “My charge sheet as presently constituted does not reveal or disclose any written law in Nigeria… It doesn’t exist.”
The lawyer argued that the trial court should have first determined whether the statutes stated in the charge were valid and subsisting before proceeding with the trial.
He said the issue would form the basis of the first part of the legal team’s examination of Kanu’s conviction.
Kanu, who was convicted in 2025, is serving a life sentence in Sokoto Prison, while attempts to have his appeal heard have stalled.
