By Our Reporter
A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera Esq., has accused the former legal team of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu of failing to challenge what he described as a legally defective charge sheet, alleging that the omission contributed to Kanu's continued detention and eventual conviction.
In a statement issued in Abuja on Saturday and titled "Part Two: The Charge Sheet That Died — And The Lawyers Who Let It Happen," Chidera argued that the charge sheet filed against Kanu became legally invalid following the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
He maintained that the former defence counsel failed to compel the court to determine what he described as a fundamental jurisdictional defect before the trial proceeded.
According to Chidera, decisions of the Supreme Court have consistently established that a valid charge sheet is the foundation of criminal jurisdiction, stressing that criminal proceedings conducted without a valid charge are unconstitutional.
He also cited the October 13, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which discharged Kanu and held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to continue his trial following his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria.
The lawyer argued that the charges ought not to have proceeded after the appellate court's ruling, insisting that the lower court had already been stripped of jurisdiction.
Chidera further contended that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, under which several counts against Kanu were filed, had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He cited Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its punishment are prescribed by a written law in force.
He alleged that despite acknowledging the repeal of the earlier legislation, the trial court proceeded with Kanu's conviction.
The lawyer also claimed that during proceedings on November 4, 2025, Kanu, while representing himself, challenged the court's jurisdiction and demanded that the prosecution identify the extant law allegedly violated.
According to Chidera, the prosecution was unable to identify a current statute supporting the disputed counts.
He further alleged that Kanu's former legal team, including Ifeanyi Ejiofor and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, failed to vigorously challenge what he described as defects in the charge sheet.
Among the alleged defects, Chidera listed reliance on repealed legislation, inclusion of a purported non-existent statutory provision, failure to specify the location of the alleged offences, and alleged non-compliance with Supreme Court directives on amending the charges.
He argued that these amounted to jurisdictional defects that should have been resolved before the trial commenced.
According to him, the cumulative effect of the alleged failures was that Kanu remained in custody despite the Court of Appeal judgment and was later tried and convicted on what he described as an invalid charge sheet.
Chidera called on the former members of Kanu's legal team to publicly explain their handling of the case, saying the Kanu family, the legal profession and the Nigerian public deserve answers.
He concluded that jurisdiction is a constitutional requirement rather than a procedural technicality, warning that failure to challenge it at the appropriate stage could have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice.
The statement was issued in Abuja on August 2, 2026, by Christopher Chidera Esq.
