The motion, dated October 30, 2025, and titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support,” was filed by Kanu himself. In it, he argued that there is no valid or existing law in Nigeria under which the charges against him can stand, describing them as “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
Relying on Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, as well as the Evidence Act 2011 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, Kanu contended that the prosecution’s case is based on repealed and non-existent laws, including the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which was repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, replaced by the TPPA 2022.
He maintained that using such repealed laws violates Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which forbids prosecution for offences not defined by an existing law. Consequently, he asked the court to strike out all charges against him, insisting they do not disclose any offence known to law.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), Kanu noted that lower courts are required under Section 122 of the Evidence Act to take judicial notice of repealed laws, stressing that failure to do so renders any proceedings based on such laws void.
He further argued that the counts against him allegedly occurred in Kenya, contrary to Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the TPPA 2022, which mandates validation by a Kenyan court before prosecution in Nigeria. According to him, this omission nullifies Nigeria’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and violates Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Kanu reiterated that under Sections 1(3) and 36(12) of the Constitution, any judicial act or law inconsistent with the Constitution is void, citing previous cases such as Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, where convictions based on non-existent laws were nullified.
He urged the court to compel the prosecution to reply strictly on points of law within three days and deliver a ruling on or before November 4, 2025, noting that his application raised purely constitutional and legal questions and therefore did not require an affidavit.
