Why I opposed Nnamdi Kanu’s terrorism trial – Lawyer

Former lead counsel to detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor, explained his opposition to the continuation of his client's terrorism trial. Ejimakor argued that the Federal Government failed to disclose the foreign locations where Kanu allegedly made broadcasts forming the basis of some charges. These broadcasts were made between 2018 and 2021 while Kanu was outside Nigeria, either in Britain or Kenya.

Ejimakor claimed this omission created a fundamental jurisdictional problem because the Federal High Court could not ascertain whether the broadcasts constituted crimes in those foreign countries. The government had initially brought charges under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, but this law was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 which required the act to constitute an offence under the law of the foreign state.

Ejimakor stated that without identifying the foreign locations, the court could not determine if the broadcasts were considered crimes in those countries, thus challenging the Federal High Court's jurisdiction.