Why Nnamdi Kanu Cannot Be Tried Again: Legal Experts Cite Double Jeopardy

Also Read

 

 The controversy surrounding the continued detention of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has reignited debate over the Nigerian judiciary’s interpretation of constitutional safeguards, with legal experts stressing that Kanu cannot lawfully face retrial.

Analysts point to the October 2022 ruling of the Court of Appeal, which discharged Kanu after declaring that the Federal Government violated the law in the way it secured his transfer from Kenya to Nigeria.

Discharge on Jurisdiction

According to constitutional lawyers, the Court of Appeal’s decision was not merely a procedural technicality but a substantive ruling that the government lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the case.

“In plain language, the court said: ‘This case should never have been brought in the first place,’” one senior legal scholar explained. “A trial without jurisdiction is not a weak trial—it is a dead trial. Once jurisdiction is denied, the entire proceeding collapses.”

They argue that such a discharge carries the same legal weight as an acquittal under Nigerian law.

The Shield of Double Jeopardy

The Nigerian Constitution, in Section 36(9), explicitly prohibits trying a person twice for the same offence once they have been acquitted or discharged.

Case law, including Ogbomor v. State (1985), Okafor v. State (2006), and FRN v. Ifegwu (2003), reinforces this principle, establishing that a discharge on jurisdictional grounds is final and bars retrial.

“This is not a political issue; it is a constitutional safeguard,” another legal commentator noted. “The principle of double jeopardy protects all Nigerians. If it can be set aside in Kanu’s case, then nobody’s rights are safe.”

Supreme Court vs. Constitution

Observers caution against the perception that the Supreme Court can override constitutional provisions. “The Constitution is supreme, even over the Supreme Court,” the report emphasized, warning that any attempt to reopen the case would amount to judicial overreach.

Broader Implications

Critics say the continued detention of Kanu despite the Court of Appeal’s ruling represents a “constitutional scandal” that undermines both the judiciary’s credibility and Nigeria’s democratic framework.

“The law is crystal clear,” the analysis concludes. “Kanu has been discharged, and that discharge is equivalent to acquittal. To persist with this trial is not justice—it is lawlessness.”