A lawyer with the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has faulted the conviction of detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader, Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the terrorism charge sheet on which he was convicted failed to identify any specific terrorist act allegedly committed by him.
Ifedi made the submission while reacting to the delay by the Court of Appeal in listing Kanu’s appeal challenging his conviction.
According to him, the charge sheet did not identify a single primary terrorist act which Kanu’s alleged broadcasts were said to have furthered.
He challenged the prosecution and trial court to identify the specific terrorist act referred to in the charges.
“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.”
Counts one and two of the charge accused Kanu of making broadcasts in furtherance of an act of terrorism against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Counts four and five alleged that he made broadcasts in furtherance of an act of terrorism, through which he allegedly incited members of the public to hunt and kill Nigerian security personnel and their families.
In count eight, the Federal Government accused Kanu of making a broadcast in furtherance of an act of terrorism and directing members of IPOB to manufacture bombs.
However, Ifedi argued that the prosecution was required to identify the specific terrorist act allegedly furthered by the broadcasts.
He said the central legal question was not whether a contemplated terrorist act was eventually carried out or whether evidence was presented at trial suggesting that an act had occurred.
Rather, he argued that the charge itself must satisfy the fundamental requirements of criminal pleading before a court could validly exercise jurisdiction over the case.
“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 added that under Nigerian criminal jurisprudence, a person could not be convicted where the indictment failed to plead the primary act required by the relevant statutory framework.
“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 Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, Ifedi maintained 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 consequently argued that Kanu’s conviction could not withstand the pending appeal, describing the prosecution as “a trial that ended before it started.”
