Legal Analyst Faults Supreme Court Ruling in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu, Calls It “Unconstitutional and Void Ab Initio”

Also Read

 

A constitutional lawyer, Njoku Jude Njoku Esq., consultant to the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, has released a critical analysis describing the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 judgment in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu as a “jurisdictional nullity” and a violation of the doctrine of appellate finality.

In the document titled “A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu: A Jurisdictional Nullity and a Violation of the Doctrine of Appellate Finality,” Njoku argued that the ruling represents a constitutional crisis unprecedented in Nigerian jurisprudence.

Background of the Case

On October 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal unanimously discharged IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, ruling that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya was unlawful and violated Nigerian law, the Constitution, and international treaties. That decision, the analyst contends, was final in nature and operated as an acquittal.

However, on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court overturned the discharge and ordered Kanu’s trial to continue under the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013—a move described as unconstitutional and without legal foundation.

Violation of Finality and Double Jeopardy

Njoku stressed that the principle of finality is central to justice, citing Section 36(9) of the Nigerian Constitution which prohibits retrial after acquittal. He noted that both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights reinforce this safeguard against double jeopardy, provisions that admit of no exception, not even on national security grounds.

“The Court of Appeal’s discharge was final and equivalent to an acquittal. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against it,” the statement reads.

Trial Under a Repealed Law

The analysis further faulted the apex court’s directive for trial under the 2013 Terrorism Prevention Act, which had already been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Njoku described this as “judicial necromancy,” stressing that repealed laws are “legally dead” and cannot sustain proceedings.

Abuse of Judicial Process

According to Njoku, the Supreme Court’s intervention amounted to judicial fraud and abuse of process, as it legitimised an unlawful abduction and attempted to resurrect repealed statutes. “By purporting to remit a case discharged on constitutional grounds for retrial, the court obstructed the due course of justice,” he argued.

International Implications

The report warns that Nigeria has breached binding international obligations under the ICCPR and the African Charter, exposing the country to potential sanctions from bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the ECOWAS Court of Justice.

Njoku concluded that the only lawful judgment remains the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 decision discharging Kanu, insisting that the Supreme Court’s ruling “exists in a legal vacuum, unenforceable and illegitimate.”