Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court has held that the manner in which Kanu was returned from Kenya, even if unlawful, does not strip the court of jurisdiction to conduct his terrorism trial.

The trial judge made this submission as part of his verdict which is currently underway at the Federal High Court.

Justice Omotosho emphasized that Kanu had already been arraigned since 2015, giving the trial court authority to proceed. The mode of his return to face trial does not rid the court of jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

Advertisement

The judge described Kanu as a fugitive for fleeing the country, adding that if his rendition was unlawful, the remedy lies only in monetary damages—compensation which he noted had already been awarded by the Kenyan authorities.

Justice Omotosho also dismissed arguments that the trial was based on a repealed statute. He clarified that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013 was valid and in force at the time of Kanu’s arrest in 2015. The later repeal by the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, he said, does not invalidate earlier proceedings.

The position clears the way for the Federal High Court to continue with judgment in the long‑running case against Nnamdi Kanu.

More details to follow soon….