A lawyer and member of the Mazi Nnamdi Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has claimed that the Federal Government has abandoned its response to an appeal filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, challenging his conviction.
Ifedi, in a statement on Tuesday, said the period allowed for the government to respond to Kanu’s appeal had expired without the filing of a response or legal brief.
He said, “Nigeria has abandoned the appeal. The Federal Government filed nothing. Time expired. No brief. No substantive defence to the appeal.”
The lawyer’s claim comes amid concerns from Kanu’s family and members of his legal team over the failure to list the appeal for hearing. IPOB has also threatened to boycott the 2027 general election in the South-East if the appeal is not heard.
Ifedi argued that the government’s alleged failure to respond could have significant implications for the appeal, particularly over whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to prosecute Kanu.
He questioned the legal foundation of the trial conducted by Justice James Omotosho, alleging that the judge committed more than 150 errors during the proceedings.
According to Ifedi, the charge against Kanu was defective because it relied on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, which he said had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He argued that the 2022 law came into force on May 12, 2022, and repealed the earlier terrorism legislation, meaning the 2013 law cited in Kanu’s charge was no longer a valid and subsisting statute when proceedings resumed on March 21, 2025.
Ifedi maintained that the alleged defect went to the root of the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Federal High Court could not lawfully proceed with the case without a valid legal foundation.
He said the court could not acquire jurisdiction simply by taking Kanu’s plea, conducting the trial, receiving evidence and eventually delivering judgment.
“None of those later acts created the jurisdiction that was absent at the beginning,” he said.
The lawyer further argued that no amount of evidence, witnesses or proceedings could cure what he described as a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
“A thousand witnesses cannot cure it. A mountain of documents cannot cure it. Months of proceedings cannot cure it. A meticulously written judgment cannot cure it. A life sentence cannot cure it,” he stated.
Ifedi said the Court of Appeal would first have to determine whether the Federal High Court was properly seized of the case before considering the substantive issues surrounding Kanu’s conviction.
He maintained that if the statutory foundation of the charge was invalid at the time the trial resumed, the proceedings that followed could not be treated as having commenced on a valid jurisdictional basis.
The Federal Government has not, in the statement provided, offered a response to Ifedi’s claims regarding its alleged failure to file a response to the appeal.
Comments