Jurisdictional Questions in the Prosecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: A Legal and Human-Rights Review by the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium

Executive Summary

This brief reviews the legal and constitutional issues arising from the prosecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). It focuses on the period between October 13 and 21, 2022, following the Court of Appeal judgment discharging Mr Kanu, and examines subsequent judicial and executive actions that, according to his defence team, raise questions about due process, jurisdiction, and the right to fair trial under Section 36 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

The analysis is supported by cited Nigerian case law and international human-rights standards. The brief calls for adherence to rule-of-law principles and for transparent judicial review of all related proceedings.

1. Background

On October 13 2022, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (CA/ABJ/CR/625C/2018), ruled that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction owing to the circumstances of Mr Kanu’s transfer from Kenya. The judgment resulted in his discharge and the striking out of pending charges.

The Federal Government subsequently filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court and later sought a stay of execution of the judgment.

2. Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues Identified

The Defence Consortium argues that:

The appellate judgment had immediate effect until stayed.
The prosecution’s reliance on repealed terrorism statutes created a potential statutory gap under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Continued detention after the judgment raised questions under Section 35 of the Constitution regarding personal liberty.

These issues, the brief asserts, merit judicial clarification to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards and Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

3. Legal Precedents Cited

FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113
A-G Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1
Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621

These authorities, according to the defence, reinforce the principle that discharge orders in criminal matters take effect immediately and cannot be suspended through civil-procedure mechanisms.

4. Appeal and Current Status

In December 2023, the Supreme Court remitted the case to the Federal High Court for retrial on selected counts. The Defence Consortium maintains that this step revived procedural aspects of the case but did not address underlying jurisdictional questions arising from the earlier repeal of the applicable statute.

5. Recommendations

The Consortium urges:

A transparent judicial determination of the jurisdictional issues raised.
Respect for court orders and adherence to due-process norms.
Independent monitoring by national and international human-rights bodies to ensure compliance with Nigeria’s constitutional and treaty obligations.
Constructive dialogue between the Nigerian Government and stakeholders to promote rule of law and peacebuilding.

Conclusion

This advocacy brief underscores the importance of upholding judicial integrity, constitutional due process, and human-rights protections in politically sensitive prosecutions. The Consortium reiterates its call for a lawful and transparent resolution consistent with both domestic and international legal standards.