Legal Expert Decries Kanu’s Conviction, Citing “Repealed Law” and Political Motivations
In a revealing interview, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor argues the case against the IPOB leader is fundamentally flawed and that a political solution, not endless prosecution, is the only path to lasting peace.
The recent conviction and sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu has triggered strong reactions across Nigeria, but a leading legal expert for the separatist leader asserts the case is built on a “repealed law” and is being driven more by politics than legal merit.
In a detailed interview on Signature TV, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Special Counsel to Kanu, presented a point-by-point breakdown of what he sees as fatal flaws in the prosecution, while urging calm and a political resolution to the underlying crisis.
A Case Built on a “Dead Law”
Ejimakor’s central argument is that the government is trying Kanu under a law that no longer exists. He likened the tactic to the era of military decrees.
The charges were framed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, which was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act in 2022. The new law features different definitions, lower penalties, and stricter rules, particularly for offenses committed abroad.
“Treating a repealed law as if it were still alive is a fundamental error,” Ejimakor argued, noting that the prosecution’s push for the death penalty is only possible under the old, defunct statute.
Jurisdiction and Fairness Questions
The interview highlighted several other key legal challenges:
- Jurisdiction: Ejimakor contends the court lacks territorial jurisdiction, as most charges relate to broadcasts made outside Nigeria. The current law requires the act to also be a crime in the country where it occurred, a point the prosecution did not establish.
- Vague Charges and Fair Hearing: He argued the charges were too vague for Kanu to mount a proper defense and that the court wrongly concluded Kanu presented no defense, despite his legal team’s extensive cross-examination of witnesses—a key part of the defense process.
- Ignored Evidence: Ejimakor pointed to testimony from a prosecution witness who admitted under oath to having never met Kanu before, evidence he says the court disregarded.
The Political Dimension and Ethnic Undercurrent
Beyond the courtroom, Ejimakor believes politics is the true engine of the case. He cited the government’s refusal to release Kanu after the Court of Appeal discharged him in 2022 as evidence it is not acting with “clean hands.”
He also spoke candidly about an ethnic dimension, comparing the government’s intense prosecution of Kanu to its handling of armed groups in other regions.
“The perception of uneven enforcement deepens resentment in the Southeast,” he said, emphasizing that while this does not place Igbo people above the law, it is a widespread sentiment that fuels instability.
Calls for Calm and a Political Solution
Despite the strong criticisms, Ejimakor repeatedly urged against any violent retaliation.
“No one should resort to violence or take the law into their own hands,” he stated, pointing to ongoing legal appeals and growing international attention as the proper avenues for challenge.
Ultimately, he argued, the verdict should be seen as an opportunity for the government to choose dialogue over force. He described Kanu’s agitation for Biafra as a response to systemic injustice and a demand for fair governance and equality.
“Long-term peace will come from political engagement, not endless prosecution,” Ejimakor concluded, framing the situation as a political crisis that only a presidential-led dialogue can resolve.
