A legal consultant to the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, has accused the Supreme Court of committing a “constitutional perversity” by remitting the trial of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, after his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 2022.
Njoku described the apex court’s December 15, 2023, decision to send Kanu’s terrorism case back to the Federal High Court as “an unlawful violation of the doctrine of finality of appellate discharge.” He said once an appellate court discharges a person, that decision is constitutionally final and beyond reversal except on new evidence or separate charges.
According to him, the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022, ruling, which acquitted Kanu and declared his rendition from Kenya illegal, had extinguished the case entirely. “Once the Court of Appeal pronounced discharge, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu became constitutionally untouchable for the same offences,” Njoku said, citing previous Supreme Court precedents including FRN v. Ifegwu and Abacha v. Fawehinmi.
Njoku insisted that the Supreme Court acted outside its powers by reviving a nullified case without overturning the appeal court’s findings or introducing new evidence. He described the action as “judicial overreach masquerading as appellate review,” warning that it undermines the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Section 36(9) and the supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution under Section 1(3).
He further argued that the decision contradicted the universal common-law doctrine that once an appellate discharge is granted, the matter ends irrevocably. Njoku referenced cases from England, Canada, and Australia to support his argument that “no superior court may revive a concluded prosecution without new evidence.”
The lawyer also accused the five-member Supreme Court panel of “judicial insubordination” for allegedly overturning precedents set by a seven-member constitutional bench, thereby violating the doctrine of stare decisis. He maintained that such an action “collapses the hierarchical integrity of the Court itself.”
Njoku concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision was “void ab initio” and “a global jurisprudential heresy,” insisting that the Constitution, not the judiciary, remains Nigeria’s ultimate legal authority. He reiterated that Nnamdi Kanu’s acquittal stands final and irreversible under both Nigerian law and international legal principles.
