Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, one of the lawyers representing Nnamdi Kanu, has described the 2023 ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader as unconstitutional and a travesty of justice.
Speaking to journalists, Njoku faulted the apex court’s decision, which overturned the October 13, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeal that discharged Kanu of all terrorism charges.
The Supreme Court, in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1364/2022), reversed the Appeal Court’s verdict on December 15, 2023, ruling that the lower court erred by failing to decide the case on its merits.
The court also relied on a stay of execution granted by the Court of Appeal on October 28, 2022, which preserved the charges and paved the way for a retrial.
Njoku, speaking on behalf of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, dismissed the reasoning as “logically absurd, constitutionally dangerous, and a judgment delivered in ignorance of binding precedents.”
He argued that Nigerian law is clear that once a court lacks jurisdiction, its proceedings are null and void. Citing authorities including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, Abacha v. State (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 761) 638 and Ogbebor v. State (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 748) 336, he said a discharge for want of jurisdiction should mark the end of the matter.
“A discharge for want of jurisdiction is therefore the end of the matter, not a provisional holding,” Njoku stated.
READ ALSO: IPOB Disowns Simon Ekpa, Rejects Link to Finland Conviction
He also faulted the Court of Appeal’s reliance on a stay of execution, stressing that Nigerian criminal law does not permit stays on acquittals or discharges.
“By suspending the discharge of October 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal preserved charges already quashed as void. The Supreme Court then leaned on this contrivance to order a retrial, something both Abacha and Ogbebor expressly forbid,” he said.
Njoku further maintained that retrying Kanu violates the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy.
“Section 36(9) prohibits retrying a person after acquittal. Once the Court of Appeal quashed the charges as unlawful, that discharge carried finality. Treating it as tentative until guilt or innocence is tested on the merits effectively abolishes the protection against double jeopardy,” he argued.
The lawyer warned that the precedent set by the Supreme Court was dangerous. “If this logic stands, then any discharge based on lack of jurisdiction can be overturned until a trial on the merits is conducted. That reduces jurisdiction, a constitutional safeguard, into a meaningless technicality,” he added.
On the international dimension of the case, Njoku pointed to the June 24, 2021, ruling of the High Court of Kenya which declared Kanu’s abduction and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria unlawful, involving torture and violations of the African Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“This ruling reinforces the Court of Appeal’s 2022 finding that jurisdiction was divested. By disregarding this and insisting on a trial, Nigeria risks deeper international condemnation and possible sanctions,” he warned.
READ ALSO: Lawyer Defends Kanu, Dismisses Comparison with Ekpa’s Conviction
The case is currently before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where the prosecution closed its case on June 20 after presenting five Department of State Services (DSS) witnesses. Kanu’s defence team, led by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), has filed a no-case submission, with Justice James Omotosho scheduled to rule on October 10.
Njoku insisted that the ongoing proceedings remain tainted. “The Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu is a judicial error of historic proportions. By insisting that only merit-based acquittals trigger double jeopardy, the Court has contradicted its own precedents, hollowed out Section 36(9), and exposed Nigeria to ridicule before the international community.
“The Court of Appeal’s discharge of October 13, 2022, should have ended the matter. Anything beyond that is an unlawful resurrection of dead charges. The ongoing trial before Justice Omotosho is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and unsustainable in law,” he declared.
Rafiyat Sadiq is a political, justice, and human rights reporter with Pinnacle Daily, known for fearless reporting and impactful storytelling. At Pinnacle Daily, she brings clarity and depth to issues shaping governance, democracy, and the protection of citizens’ rights.
