International legal efforts are now being mobilised to challenge the life sentence handed to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

His legal team says lawyers across different countries are working together to overturn the conviction through coordinated global legal action.

According to the defence, the judgment that sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment is deeply flawed.

They insist the decision is riddled with constitutional and jurisdictional defects that make it legally unsustainable under Nigerian law.

In a detailed legal brief prepared by one of Kanu’s lawyers, Njoku Jude Njoku Esq, the team argued that the Federal High Court lacked the authority to convict Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.

The lawyers said the law had already been repealed before judgment was delivered and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.

They relied on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person can be convicted for an offence that is not defined by a law in force at the time of trial and conviction. The defence argued that convicting Kanu under a repealed law amounts to a clear violation of his constitutional rights.

The lawyers also referenced Section 122 of the Evidence Act and the Supreme Court ruling in NNPC v. Fawehinmi. They maintained that courts are required to take judicial notice of repealed statutes and that failure to do so strips the court of jurisdiction.

They further claimed that Justice Omotosho had earlier acknowledged on record that a conviction based on a repealed law would be unlawful. According to them, the court later reversed this position in the final judgment, an action they described as judicial estoppel, citing Ogoejeofo v. Ogoejeofo.

The defence described the process as a “constitutional ambush,” stressing that Kanu was unrepresented at the time the alleged reversal occurred. They argued that this denied him fair hearing and due process.

On jurisdiction, the lawyers faulted the court for postponing the determination of jurisdictional objections until judgment. They said this approach runs contrary to the principle established in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, which holds that jurisdiction must be settled before a court takes any further step.

According to the defence, proceeding with the trial without first resolving jurisdictional issues rendered every subsequent action a nullity in law.

They also criticised the court’s reliance on a savings clause to justify prosecution under a repealed statute. The lawyers argued that “savings clauses are intended only to manage lawful transition, not to preserve extinguished laws.”

They further stated that “the judgment improperly blended provisions of repealed and extant terrorism statutes,creating what they described as “a fictional hybrid law unknown to Nigerian criminal jurisprudence.”

Addressing the substance of the charges, the defence argued that the alleged “offences were based on broadcasts made from the United Kingdom.” They insisted that Nigerian criminal jurisdiction is territorial unless clearly extended by statute.

According to them, the prosecution failed to establish the legal basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction. They said this includes the failure to prove double criminality under UK law, as required by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.

They also noted that “no evidence was led to show that the alleged broadcasts were received, heard or acted upon in Nigeria.”

On Kanu’s arrest, the lawyers reiterated that “he was abducted from Kenya rather than lawfully extradited.” They stressed that “no extradition request was made, no Kenyan court authorised his transfer,” and added that “Kenyan courts have since declared the rendition illegal.”

The defence maintained that “Nigerian courts cannot derive jurisdiction from an unlawful arrest or benefit from executive illegality.” They cited the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Supreme Court decision in Abacha v. Fawehinmi to support their position.

They further argued that “reliance on the doctrine of male captus bene detentus could not cure” what they described as “fundamental statutory and constitutional violations.”

According to them, Nigerian law clearly prescribes extradition procedures and does not permit abduction.

The legal team disclosed that “Lawyers in several countries are now reviewing the case with a view to challenging the conviction through domestic appeals, constitutional actions and international legal mechanisms.”

They concluded that the combined weight of the alleged errors, including prosecution under a repealed law, failure to resolve jurisdiction, defects in extraterritorial claims and illegal rendition, makes the conviction unsafe.

“The only lawful outcome, in our view, is the discharge and acquittal of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” the defence stated.