A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera Esq., has accused the former legal team of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, of failing to challenge what he described as a legally defective charge sheet, arguing that the alleged oversight contributed to Kanu's continued detention and eventual conviction.
In a statement issued on Saturday, Chidera said the charge sheet filed against Kanu had become legally invalid following the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and that the previous defence counsel failed to compel the court to address what he termed a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The statement, titled "Part Two: The Charge Sheet That Died — And The Lawyers Who Let It Happen," follows an earlier publication in which the lawyer criticised the handling of a civil stay of execution in Kanu's case.
According to Chidera, Nigerian Supreme Court decisions have consistently held that a valid charge sheet is the foundation of criminal jurisdiction, arguing that any criminal proceedings conducted without a valid charge are unconstitutional.
He referenced the Supreme Court's position that a criminal case must be initiated through due process before a court can validly exercise jurisdiction.
The lawyer also cited the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on October 13, 2022, which discharged Kanu and held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to continue his trial following what the appellate court described as his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria.
Chidera argued that the charges should not have proceeded after the appellate court's ruling, maintaining that the lower court had already been stripped of jurisdiction.
He 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that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, under which several counts against Kanu were filed, had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
According to him, Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution provides that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its punishment are prescribed by a written law in force.
The statement alleged that despite acknowledging the repeal of the earlier legislation, the trial court proceeded with Kanu's conviction.
Chidera also claimed that during proceedings on November 4, 2025, Kanu personally challenged the jurisdiction of the court after representing himself, insisting that no valid charge existed before the court and urging the prosecution to identify the extant law allegedly violated.
According to the lawyer, the prosecution was unable to identify a current statute supporting the disputed counts.
He further alleged that the former defence team, including Ifeanyi Ejiofor and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mike Ozekhome, failed to vigorously challenge several alleged defects in the charge sheet.
Among the issues raised were the alleged reliance on repealed legislation, the inclusion of what he described as a non-existent statutory provision, failure to specify the location of the alleged offences, and the alleged non-compliance with directives of the Supreme Court regarding amendment of the charges.
The lawyer argued that these issues amounted to jurisdictional defects that should have been addressed before the trial proceeded.
He maintained that the cumulative effect of the alleged failures was that Kanu remained in custody despite the Court of Appeal judgment and was subsequently 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, insisting that the Kanu family, the legal profession and the Nigerian public deserve answers.
He concluded by describing jurisdiction as a constitutional requirement rather than a mere procedural technicality, arguing that failure to challenge it at the appropriate stage can have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice.
The statement was issued in Abuja on August 2, 2026, by Christopher Chidera Esq.
