Former lead counsel to the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor, has explained why he opposed the continuation of his client’s terrorism trial, saying the Federal Government failed to disclose the foreign locations from which Kanu allegedly made the broadcasts forming the basis of some of the charges.
Ejimakor, who served as Kanu’s lead counsel between February 2024 and March 2025, said the omission was critical because the alleged broadcasts were made between 2018 and 2021, when Kanu was outside Nigeria and was known to have been in either Britain or Kenya.
He made the disclosure in a Facebook post on Friday titled, “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: Why I opposed trial when I was lead counsel.”
According to him, 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.”
Ejimakor said the Federal Government initially brought the charges under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which, according to him, gave the Federal High Court extraterritorial jurisdiction over offences committed outside Nigeria, irrespective of whether such acts were offences in the foreign country where they occurred.
He, however, said the legal position changed after the 2013 law was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
He explained that while the earlier law allowed extraterritorial jurisdiction “regardless of whether or not such act (or broadcast, as in this case) is an offence in the foreign country where it occurred”, the 2022 law introduced a requirement that the act must constitute an offence under the law of the foreign state where it occurred.
Ejimakor described this as the “doctrine of double criminality”.
“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,” he said.
The lawyer argued that the prosecution’s failure to identify the country from which each alleged broadcast was made therefore created a fundamental jurisdictional problem.
“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?” he asked.
Ejimakor recalled that the Supreme Court, in December 2023, overturned the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 decision which had discharged Kanu and directed that the trial continue before Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako.
It was against that background, he said, that Kanu appointed him lead counsel in February 2024.
He said that after examining the terrorism-related charges, he discovered that “none of them mentioned the foreign location where they were made”, despite the prosecution alleging that the broadcasts occurred between 2018 and 2021 when Kanu was outside Nigeria.
“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 Ejimakor, identifying the location of the broadcasts was not a mere technicality but “a critical element of the offence,” because the court needed to establish whether the alleged conduct constituted an offence in the relevant foreign country.
He said the defence therefore challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court when the trial resumed in February 2024.
“We vigorously raised objections to the 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.
Ejimakor further argued that had the prosecution disclosed the countries involved, the court could have determined the issue by reference to the laws of those countries.
“Had the foreign locations been mentioned and the Court determined (by mere reference to the laws of the foreign nations) that the broadcasts are not considered a crime in those nations, that would have been the end of the trial, because jurisdiction shall not lie. This is black letter, not my legal opinion,” he stated.
However, Ejimakor said Justice Nyako overruled the defence objections, prompting the legal team to approach the Court of Appeal and seek an indefinite adjournment of the trial pending the determination of the jurisdictional question.
He also questioned why the Federal Government did not simply amend the charges to include the foreign locations of the alleged broadcasts.
“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,” Ejimakor claimed.
He alleged that the government may have consulted British and Kenyan laws and discovered that the broadcasts were not criminalised in either jurisdiction.
“Assumedly, the government had consulted both British and Kenyan laws on point and discovered (to their dismay) that such broadcasts are NOT considered a crime in both countries,” he wrote.
“Thus, any mentioning of those countries as the locale of the broadcasts would have ended the trial by self-destructing the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court,” he added.
Ejimakor acknowledged that the claim about the government’s alleged knowledge of British and Kenyan law was his inference, saying the prosecution was therefore “stuck” and “strategically decided to press on under the old law”.
The case was subsequently transferred from Justice Nyako in March 2025 and assigned to Justice James Omotosho. Ejimakor said his role as lead counsel ended after Kanu appointed another lawyer to lead his defence.
Kanu was subsequently convicted on seven counts by Justice Omotosho on November 20, 2025. He was sentenced 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.
Kanu has appealed the conviction, as of February 2026, arguing that the trial was characterised by fundamental legal errors. In his notice of appeal dated February 4, 2026, he challenged, among other issues, the reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, the failure to determine his preliminary objection and alleged denial of fair hearing.
Ejimakor said the jurisdictional argument over the alleged foreign broadcasts was also central to Kanu’s repeated demand that the court “show me the law”.
He maintained that the same issue, alongside other grounds, could ultimately lead to the conviction being overturned.
“It is also the same reason (plus more) that his conviction is liable to be overturned on appeal, or by a sound political decision, sooner rather than later,” Ejimakor stated.
