DistantNews
Support us
🇳🇬 Nigeria /Crime & Justice

Nnamdi Kanu: Broadcast locations created legal flaw, says former counsel

From The Punch · () English

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

At a glance

News Named sources In the courts
  • Nnamdi Kanu's former lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, argues the prosecution's failure to specify broadcast locations created a legal flaw in his terrorism trial.
  • Ejimakor contends that the alleged broadcasts occurred between 2018 and 2021 while Kanu was abroad, making the location crucial under the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
  • The defense argued that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction if the acts were not criminal offenses in the foreign countries where they allegedly occurred.

Aloy Ejimakor, former lead counsel for Nnamdi Kanu, has detailed his legal strategy to challenge the continuation of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra's terrorism trial. Ejimakor argues that the prosecution's failure to specify the locations where Kanu allegedly made broadcasts underpinning the charges constitutes a fundamental legal flaw.

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

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

Ejimakor, who represented Kanu from February 2024 to March 2025, explained that the alleged broadcasts took place between 2018 and 2021, a period when Kanu was residing outside Nigeria. This detail is critical, he stated in a Facebook post, due to changes introduced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, which replaced the earlier 2013 act.

The lawyer elaborated that the 2013 law granted the Federal High Court extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain terrorism offenses committed abroad, regardless of whether the act was illegal in the foreign country. However, the 2022 law introduced the "doctrine of double criminality," requiring an act committed outside Nigeria to also be an offense under the laws of the foreign country where it occurred.

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

— Aloy EjimakorExplaining the implication of the 'double criminality' doctrine on the court's jurisdiction.

Ejimakor asserted that the prosecution's omission of the specific foreign country for each alleged broadcast prevents the court from determining jurisdiction. "In other words, if the broadcasts made by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from either Britain or Kenya are not considered a crime in those countries, extraterritorial jurisdiction cannot lie with the Federal High Court," he stated. He recalled that the Supreme Court overturned a previous discharge order in December 2023, allowing the trial to continue. Following this, Kanu appointed Ejimakor as lead counsel in February 2024, and the defense team subsequently challenged the court's jurisdiction based on the undisclosed broadcast locations.

We vigorously raised objections to jurisdiction of the Federal High Cou

— Aloy EjimakorDescribing the defense's challenge to the court's jurisdiction.
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