By Chinedum Anayo
The Federal High Court’s landmark conviction of Nnamdi Kanu on November 20, 2025, handing him life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related charges may face serious legal headwinds, as several major challenges to the trial’s legitimacy and process have emerged.
Firstly, In June 2025, a Kenyan High Court declared that Kanu’s 2021 removal from Kenya to Nigeria was “illegal and unconstitutional.”
Yet, Judge James Omotosho went ahead and found Kanu guilty on all counts.
According to the Kenyan Court, Kanu was abducted, tortured, denied food and medicine, and forcefully deported.
Consequently, as Kanu was brought to Nigeria in violation of his rights, the trial becomes tainted ab initio. It raises serious concerns about the legality of his presence in Nigerian courts, which will eventually provide grounds for appeal.
In addition, Kanu filed a motion insisting that the 2013 Terrorism Prevention Act under which he was charged had been repealed and replaced by the 2022 Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
He also cited a Supreme Court judgment (from December 2023) which, he argues, made one of the counts (Count 7) invalid because it no longer exists in law.
Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly states that “a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefore is prescribed in a written law”. This simply entails that if a court finds he was tried under a law that no longer existed, his entire prosecution could be declared void.
A trial without complete legal backing is much questionable. Kanu’s trial violates provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which prohibits “extraordinary rendition” and inhumane treatment.
It is important to note that Nigeria is a signatory to many international treaties on human rights, including the African Charter.
That being highlighted, this case is likewise international. The trial itself is a violation of fundamental rights, not just a domestic prosecution.
However, Kanu’s case is deeply entwined with secessionist politics in Nigeria’s southeast. It must be treated with respect and sensitivity as a little irrationality could heighten regional tensions.
While Kanu has been sentenced, lawyers defending him already have potent lines of attack.
If the case is based around illegal rendition or the use of a repealed law, this conviction could face serious legal jeopardy.
In all, there seems to be a political risk; negotiating with bandit leaders (or granting them amnesty) has sometimes been a tool used by governments to reduce violence but similar leeway is rarely granted to IPOB / Kanu.
An important question every Nigerian should ask is, ‘What does terrorism mean in practice ?’.
