Aloy Ejimakor says prosecutors failed to identify where alleged broadcasts were made, raising a jurisdictional question under Nigeria’s 2022 terrorism law
Former lead counsel to detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor, has disclosed what he described as a crucial flaw in the terrorism trial, saying the Federal Government failed to state whether alleged broadcasts were made from Britain or Kenya when the broadcasts formed part of the charges against Kanu.
Also read: IPOB condemns alleged call to kill Nnamdi Kanu
Ejimakor, who led Kanu’s defence team between February 2024 and March 2025, made the disclosure in a Facebook post on Friday titled, “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: Why I opposed trial when I was lead counsel.”
The lawyer said the issue became central because the prosecution alleged that several terrorism-related offences arose from broadcasts made between 2018 and 2021, a period when Kanu was outside Nigeria and was known to have been in Britain or Kenya.
Ejimakor argued that the omission was more than a procedural detail because Nigeria’s legal framework on terrorism changed after the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
According to him, the earlier legislation provided broader grounds for Nigeria’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over certain offences committed outside the country.
The 2022 law, he said, introduced an additional requirement for an alleged extraterritorial act to also constitute an offence under the law of the foreign state where it occurred.
Ejimakor described the requirement 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 former lead counsel said the prosecution’s failure to identify the country from which each alleged broadcast originated therefore created a fundamental question for the court.
“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?” Ejimakor asked.
The argument is now particularly significant because Kanu has already been convicted by the Federal High Court in Abuja and has appealed the judgment.
Justice James Omotosho convicted Kanu on seven counts on November 20, 2025, imposing five life sentences, a 20-year prison term and a five-year sentence, with the terms ordered to run concurrently.
Kanu filed a notice of appeal on February 4, 2026, asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction.
His grounds included allegations that the trial court relied on a repealed law, failed to determine his preliminary objection and denied him a fair hearing. (Channel Television)
Ejimakor’s latest explanation provides further detail about an objection he said the defence raised when the trial resumed in February 2024.
He said the legal team reviewed the terrorism charges and discovered that none identified the foreign country from which the alleged broadcasts were made, despite the prosecution placing the broadcasts between 2018 and 2021.
“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.
The defence consequently challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that the court first had to determine whether the alleged broadcasts constituted offences under the laws of the countries where they were made.
Ejimakor said Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako rejected the objection, prompting the defence to approach the Court of Appeal while seeking to halt further proceedings until the jurisdictional question was resolved.
The lawyer said the prosecution could have addressed the issue by amending the charges to identify the foreign locations.
“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.
Ejimakor went further by suggesting that the Federal Government may have examined British and Kenyan law and concluded that the alleged broadcasts did not amount to criminal conduct in either jurisdiction.
He acknowledged, however, that this was his inference rather than an established fact.
The dispute over jurisdiction forms part of a much longer legal battle surrounding Kanu, who was arrested in Nigeria in 2015, released on bail and later left the country before being arrested in Kenya and returned to Nigeria in 2021.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu, citing the circumstances surrounding his rendition and ordering his release.
The Supreme Court overturned that decision in December 2023, holding that the alleged unlawful rendition did not remove the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts to try the criminal charges against him. (Channel Television)
Following the Supreme Court decision, Kanu’s case returned to the Federal High Court. Ejimakor subsequently became lead counsel in February 2024 and said the defence adopted the jurisdictional challenge after examining the amended charges.
The case was later reassigned to Justice Omotosho after Justice Nyako ceased handling it. Kanu was eventually convicted and sentenced in November 2025.
The conviction has not ended the legal dispute.
In his February 2026 appeal, Kanu challenged the legality of the proceedings on several grounds, including the trial court’s reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
He also argued that the court failed to resolve preliminary objections and other issues before delivering judgment. (Punch Newspapers)
Ejimakor now maintains that the alleged foreign location of the broadcasts could provide another significant ground for the appellate court to consider.
He said the court would have been able to determine the jurisdictional question relatively simply if the prosecution had identified the countries involved and allowed the relevant foreign laws to be examined.
“Had the foreign locations been mentioned and the Court determined … 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,” he stated.
The Federal Government has not, in the material reviewed for this report, publicly accepted Ejimakor’s interpretation of the law or his assertion that the omission of the broadcast locations invalidated the prosecution.
The jurisdictional argument must therefore be distinguished from a judicial finding.
Ejimakor is presenting the position as a defence argument, while the courts remain responsible for determining whether the relevant provisions of the 2022 law apply to Kanu’s case and what effect, if any, the alleged omission has on his conviction.
For Kanu, the issue now forms part of a broader appeal against a conviction that carries a life sentence. The appellate court will ultimately determine whether the grounds raised by the defence are sufficient to overturn the judgment.
Ejimakor concluded that the jurisdictional question, alongside other grounds already raised by Kanu, could have significant consequences for the conviction.
Also read: IPOB suspends Nnamdi Kanu over unguarded utterances
“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,” he stated.
David Okere is a journalist and contributor to Freelanews.com, covering business, governance, public affairs, and human-interest stories with a commitment to accuracy, balance, and public interest reporting.
