NNAMDI KANU APPEALS TERRORISM CONVICTION, ALLEGES DUE PROCESS AND EVIDENCE FAILURES

Also Read

IPOB leader challenges life sentences, cites fair hearing breaches, repealed law, and conviction without proof

By Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq.

Abuja

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, challenging his conviction on terrorism-related charges and the life sentences imposed by the Federal High Court on November 20, 2025.

The appeal, filed on February 4, 2026, contests Kanu’s conviction on seven counts bordering on alleged unlawful broadcasts, incitement, bomb-making directives, and the illegal importation of a radio transmitter. Most of the counts attracted life imprisonment, with the trial court ordering all sentences to run concurrently.

However, the appeal goes beyond a routine post-conviction challenge, raising fundamental questions about due process, evidentiary standards, and statutory compliance.

Compressed but Far-Reaching Challenge

Although the Notice of Appeal contains 22 grounds, the defence team describes it as a carefully distilled legal challenge. According to counsel, an initial review uncovered more than 1,000 procedural and legal defects, later refined to 101 core infractions before being streamlined to 22 grounds to comply with appellate rules and avoid prolixity.

The defence says the approach is intended to present the Court of Appeal with a clear picture of cumulative systemic failure rather than overwhelm it with volume.

Key Issues Before the Court

The grounds of appeal raise several recurring themes:

2017 Military Operation and “Flight” Narrative

The appeal faults the trial court for failing to consider the legal implications of the 2017 military invasion of Kanu’s residence during Operation Python Dance II, which reportedly resulted in deaths and destruction. The defence argues that Kanu’s subsequent absence from Nigeria was compelled by state violence, yet was wrongly portrayed as voluntary “flight” and used to draw adverse inferences against him.

Alleged Denial of Fair Hearing

Multiple grounds allege violations of Section 36 of the Constitution, including the court’s failure to hear a pending preliminary objection, leaving a bail application undecided, and delivering judgment without affording the defence an opportunity to file a final written address.

Conviction Without Proof

The defence argues that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that:

No victim testified to intimidation, violence, or harm.

No witness confirmed hearing or being influenced by the alleged broadcasts.

No bomb was produced, no act of manufacture proved, and no causal link established.

According to the appeal, the convictions were entered without credible evidence.

Reliance on Unpleaded Facts

The appeal further alleges that the trial court relied on facts not pleaded in the charge sheet and not proved in evidence, including references to alleged attacks on United States and United Kingdom diplomatic missions. The defence maintains that criminal convictions must rest strictly on pleaded and proved facts.

Statutory and Sentencing Irregularities

Kanu also challenges convictions entered under a terrorism statute said to have been repealed before judgment, arguing that courts cannot convict under a non-existent law. Additionally, Count 7—relating to the importation of a radio transmitter—is challenged as statute-barred and based on a penal provision with a limited maximum sentence which, the defence says, Kanu has already exceeded in custody.

Next Steps

The Court of Appeal is expected to receive the Record of Appeal before fixing hearing dates. The case is set to renew national attention on due process, evidentiary standards, and judicial accountability in Nigeria, particularly in politically sensitive terrorism prosecutions.