A lawyer with the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has challenged the legal basis of Nnamdi Kanu’s terrorism conviction, arguing that the charge sheet on which the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra was convicted failed to identify any specific terrorist act.
Ifedi made the submission while reacting to the delay by the Court of Appeal in listing Kanu’s appeal challenging his conviction.
He argued that although the prosecution alleged that Kanu’s broadcasts were made “in furtherance of an act of terrorism,” the charge sheet did not identify the particular terrorist act that the broadcasts allegedly promoted or facilitated.
According to him, the prosecution and the trial court must identify the specific act of terrorism referred to in the charges for the indictment to meet the requirements of criminal law.
“We issue a direct, precise challenge to Justice Omotosho, the prosecution team, and every legal practitioner in Nigeria: point to a single count on the charge sheet that identifies the distinct, primary act of terrorism Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s broadcasts allegedly furthered.
“Not the broadcast itself. Not a political statement. Not a threat. Name the primary terrorist act. Show us the count,” he said.
Kanu was convicted by the Federal High Court after facing terrorism-related charges brought against him by the Federal Government.
Ifedi particularly pointed to counts one and two, which accused Kanu of making broadcasts in furtherance of an act of terrorism against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Counts four and five alleged that Kanu made broadcasts in furtherance of an act of terrorism and, through the broadcasts, incited members of the public to hunt and kill Nigerian security personnel and their families.
In count eight, the Federal Government accused him of making a broadcast in furtherance of an act of terrorism and directing members of IPOB to manufacture bombs.
However, Ifedi maintained that the prosecution was required to identify the primary terrorist act allegedly furthered by the broadcasts, arguing that the omission was fundamental to the validity of the charge.
He said the central issue was not whether a terrorist act contemplated in the prosecution’s case was eventually carried out or whether evidence was presented during the trial suggesting that such an act had occurred.
Rather, he argued that the charge itself must disclose the factual ingredients of the alleged offence before a court could validly exercise jurisdiction over the accused.
“This is the crucible of the entire trial: a conviction followed on a terrorism charge sheet that did not state any overt terrorist act,” Ifedi said.
He further argued that Nigerian criminal jurisprudence did not permit a person to be convicted on an indictment that failed to plead the primary act required by the relevant statutory provision.
“Speech is not a self-subsisting terrorist act under Section 1(2)(b). Alleging that a broadcast was made ‘in furtherance of an act of terrorism’ without identifying the primary terrorist act yields a hollow legal conclusion,” he said.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, Ifedi argued that a trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict on a charge sheet that failed to disclose the factual ingredients of the alleged offence.
He therefore maintained that Kanu’s conviction could not withstand appellate scrutiny, describing the proceedings as “a trial that ended before it started.”
Kanu’s appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal, where his defence is challenging the conviction and seeking judicial review of the legal basis of the trial and judgment.