DistantNews
Support us
🇳🇬 Nigeria /Crime & Justice

Lawyer Explains Opposition to Nnamdi Kanu's Terrorism Trial

From The Punch · () English

Translated from English and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Named sources Under investigation
  • Aloy Ejimakor, former lead counsel for Nnamdi Kanu, explained his opposition to the terrorism trial based on the government's failure to disclose foreign locations of alleged broadcasts.
  • Ejimakor argued that the prosecution did not specify where Kanu made broadcasts between 2018-2021, when he was outside Nigeria, which is crucial under current laws.
  • He cited the "doctrine of double criminality," requiring alleged acts to be offenses in the foreign country where they occurred, a point not addressed by the prosecution.

Aloy Ejimakor, who served as the lead counsel for the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has detailed his reasons for opposing the continuation of his client's terrorism trial. Ejimakor stated that a critical flaw in the prosecution's case was the failure to disclose the specific foreign locations from which Kanu allegedly made broadcasts that formed the basis of some charges.

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: Why I opposed trial when I was lead counsel.

— Aloy EjimakorTitle of Ejimakor's Facebook post explaining his stance.

Ejimakor explained that the charges alleged that Kanu committed terrorism-related offenses through broadcasts made between 2018 and 2021. During this period, Kanu was residing outside Nigeria, reportedly in Britain or Kenya. He highlighted that the prosecution initially brought charges under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which granted the Federal High Court extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed abroad, regardless of whether they were crimes in the foreign country.

The charges against Kanu plainly stated that all the terrorism-related offences were based on broadcasts he allegedly made between 2018 and 2021 when he was not in Nigeria but was known to be in either Britain or Kenya.

— Aloy EjimakorExplanation of the basis of the charges and Kanu's location.

However, the legal landscape shifted with the repeal of the 2013 act and its replacement by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. Ejimakor pointed out that the new law introduced the "doctrine of double criminality," meaning the alleged act must also constitute an offense in the foreign country where it occurred for the court to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. He argued that the prosecution's omission of the specific foreign locales for Kanu's alleged broadcasts created a fundamental jurisdictional problem, as it prevented verification of whether these acts were criminal offenses in Britain or Kenya.

In other words, if the broadcasts made by Mazi Kanu from either Britain or Kenya are not considered a crime in those countries, extraterritorial jurisdiction cannot lie with the Federal High Court.

— Aloy EjimakorDefining the 'doctrine of double criminality' in relation to the case.

Ejimakor's appointment as lead counsel followed a Supreme Court decision in December 2023 that overturned a previous discharge order and directed the trial to continue. It was during his tenure, from February 2024 to March 2025, that he identified this critical gap in the prosecution's case, noting that none of the terrorism-related charges specified the foreign location of the alleged broadcasts.

So, without mentioning the foreign locale of the broadcasts, how can the Federal High Court ascertain whether or not the broadcasts are considered crimes in such locales?

— Aloy EjimakorQuestioning the prosecution's failure to specify broadcast locations.
About this summary

Originally published by The Punch in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog