Defence Team Flags Judicial Infractions in Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial

Also Read

The legal defence team of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has accused the Nigerian judiciary of multiple infractions in his ongoing trial, including violations of constitutional rights, disregard for appellate rulings, and reliance on repealed laws.

In a position paper dated September 24, 2025, Onyedikachi Ifedi, a consultant to the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, outlined what he described as “a catalogue of illegality, injustice, and impunity” in the handling of the case.

Allegations of Illegality

The statement argues that Nigerian courts assumed unlawful jurisdiction over Kanu following his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021, instead of adhering to international extradition protocols. Citing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria has domesticated, the defence noted that forced transfers without due process contravene both domestic and international law.

It further alleged that Kanu has been charged under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, despite its repeal by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022. According to the defence, prosecuting under a repealed law violates the constitutional principle that no offence can be created without a valid written statute.

Concerns Over Fair Hearing

The document also accuses the trial court of denying Kanu fair hearing, including restrictions on access to legal counsel and documents while in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS). The secrecy of certain proceedings and limited media access, it claimed, contradict constitutional guarantees of public trials.

Disregard of Appellate Rulings

The defence pointed to an October 2022 ruling of the Court of Appeal, which declared Kanu’s rendition unlawful and barred his continued detention or prosecution. Despite this, the Supreme Court in December 2023 remitted the case for trial, effectively overriding the appellate decision without formally setting it aside.

“This condones executive disobedience and erodes public confidence in the judiciary,” the statement read, citing precedents where courts warned against government defiance of judicial orders.

Procedural and Ethical Lapses

Additional claims include excessive amendments to the charge sheet, tolerance of alleged false testimony by prosecution witnesses, and a broader failure to uphold constitutional supremacy in the face of executive pressure.

Call for Judicial Accountability

Summarising the position, the defence argued that Kanu’s trial exemplifies “prosecution under repealed statutes, denial of fair hearing, and judicial endorsement of extraordinary rendition.”

It concluded:

“By framing mischief by law, the Nigerian judiciary has descended into complicity with executive lawlessness, abandoning its constitutional role as the last hope of the common man.”

Background

Nnamdi Kanu, facing terrorism-related charges, was first arrested in 2015 but later jumped bail and resurfaced abroad. He was forcibly returned from Kenya in June 2021, sparking widespread debate on extraordinary rendition. His trial has since moved between the Federal High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, with multiple rulings and reversals.

The federal government maintains that Kanu must face justice, while his supporters and lawyers insist that his detention and trial are politically motivated and unlawful.