Former lead counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor, has explained his decision to challenge the continuation of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra’s terrorism trial, arguing that the prosecution failed to disclose where the alleged broadcasts underpinning the charges were made.
Ejimakor, who led Kanu’s defence between February 2024 and March 2025, said the omission created a fundamental jurisdictional question because the alleged broadcasts were made between 2018 and 2021, when Kanu was outside the country.
The lawyer disclosed this in a Facebook post on Friday titled, “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: Why I opposed trial when I was lead counsel.”
He said the terrorism charges against Kanu were based on broadcasts allegedly made while he was in either the United Kingdom or Kenya, but the prosecution did not identify the foreign country from which each broadcast was made.
According to Ejimakor, the location was legally significant because of changes introduced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, which replaced the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
He explained that the repealed 2013 law gave the Federal High Court extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain terrorism offences committed outside the country, regardless of whether the alleged act was an offence in the country where it occurred.
However, he said the 2022 law introduced what lawyers refer to as the doctrine of double criminality, requiring an act committed outside the country to also constitute an offence under the law of the foreign country where it occurred.
Ejimakor said the prosecution’s failure to identify the location of the alleged broadcasts therefore prevented the court from determining whether the conduct amounted to an offence in the relevant foreign 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 said.
Ejimakor recalled that the Supreme Court in December 2023 overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision which had discharged Kanu and ordered that his trial continue before Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako.
Following the Supreme Court judgment, Kanu appointed Ejimakor as lead counsel in February 2024.
He said his review of the charges showed that none of the counts identified the foreign location where the alleged broadcasts were made, despite the prosecution alleging that they occurred while Kanu was outside the country.
“For this reason, we took the firm position that Mazi Kanu cannot be tried by the Federal High Court on charges that did not disclose the foreign country where the broadcasts that constituted the offences were made,” he stated.
According to him, the defence subsequently challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court when the trial resumed in February 2024.
“We vigorously raised objections to jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to proceed with the trial on the basis that the court cannot assert jurisdiction without first determining that the broadcasts ‘constituted an offence under the law of the foreign state’,” he said.
The lawyer described the identification of the foreign location as more than a technical requirement, arguing that it was necessary for the court to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the alleged offences.
Ejimakor said the prosecution could have amended the charges to identify the countries from which the broadcasts were allegedly made but failed to do so.
“The government could have easily ended it by simply amending the charges to reflect the name of the foreign country from where the broadcasts were made, but it did not. Why? Because it could not,” he claimed.
He further alleged, without presenting evidence, that the Federal Government may have examined British and Kenyan laws and concluded that the alleged broadcasts did not constitute offences in either country.
Ejimakor acknowledged that this was his inference, saying the prosecution consequently continued with the case under the old legal framework.
Justice Nyako subsequently overruled the defence’s jurisdictional objections, prompting the legal team to approach the Court of Appeal and seek an indefinite adjournment pending the determination of the jurisdictional issue.
Ejimakor’s tenure as Kanu’s lead counsel ended in March 2025 after the case was transferred from Justice Nyako to Justice James Omotosho and Kanu appointed another lawyer to lead his defence.
Justice Omotosho subsequently convicted Kanu on seven counts on November 20, 2025.
He sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment on five terrorism-related counts, 20 years for being the leader and member of the proscribed IPOB and five years for unlawfully importing a radio transmitter. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
